Proposition 53K1639

Projet de loi modifiant la législation en ce qui concerne l'amélioration de l'approche des abus sexuels et des faits de pédophilie dans une relation d'autorité.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Raf Terwingen
Ecolo Olivier Deleuze
Groen Stefaan Van Hecke
LE Christian Brotcorne
MR Marie-Christine Marghem
N-VA Sophie De Wit
Open Vld Carina Van Cauter
PS | SP Karine Lalieux
Vooruit Renaat Landuyt

Submission date

June 29, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

DNA professional secret judicial inquiry child paedophilia pornography sexual violence sexual offence help for victims criminal procedure criminal law barring of penalties by limitation limitation of legal proceedings carrying out of sentence

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

VB

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

July 19, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I have agreed with Mrs. Deom on the presentation of the report. I will start. I am reporting on behalf of the Committee on Justice on the discussions that have taken place with regard to the bill amending the legislation as regards improving the approach to sexual abuse and pedophilia in an authority relationship.

The committee discussed the bill, which received the urgency in plenary session, during two sessions. Three bills of Mr. Schoofs were linked to this bill. The proposal aims to translate some of the recommendations of the special committee on the treatment of sexual abuse and acts of pedophilia within an authority relationship, in particular within the Church, as formulated in its final report of 31 March 2011, into a concrete legislative initiative.

The present legislative proposal is a joint initiative of the applicants and proposes seven concrete legislative amendments, in particular, first, the extension of the limitation period to fifteen years for serious sexual offences against persons under eighteen years; second, the obligation of audiovisual recordings in cases where the interrogated minor is the victim or witness of sexual offences; third, an extension of the right of speech and an adaptation of the professional secret; fourth, an extension of the penalization of child pornography; fifth, the provision that the magistrate, when in cases of sexual abuse he does not perform a personal DNA examination, should make his decision with seven grounds to dress up and the victim’s reason for obtaining this knowledge into a criminal penalty; sixth, it is necessary to establish the main misstatement of this case, in order to establish that it is always possible, in the case of criminal offence, to establish the basis of the criminal offence, in order to establish that it is possible, in the case of criminal offence. I will briefly address the first three points. As mentioned, Ms. Deom will address the following points.

First, the limitation period. The hearings, held in the Special Committee on Sexual Abuse, showed that victims sometimes need a long time before they can talk about sexual abuse. However, too long limitation periods can sometimes lead to evidence problems. Therefore, a prescription period of fifteen years was chosen because it already applies to the non-correctionalizable crimes. This is to maintain a certain consistency with regard to the limitation periods in criminal matters.

Secondly, the bill aims at new, more detailed rules for the audiovisual recording of the interrogation of minors or vulnerable persons in Articles 92 and 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bill aims to generalize the recordings and make them legally mandatory. On the one hand, the proposal provides for an official registration in the case of the interrogation of a minor who himself is the victim or has witnessed certain crimes. In those cases, the victim perceives the facts as more painful and more shocking. In those cases, the audiovisual recording will prevent them from having to undergo a second hearing.

On the other hand, the bill provides for the possibility of ordering an audiovisual recording of the hearing in the case of other crimes referred to in Article 91bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this case, there must be serious and exceptional circumstances. If it is a minor under the age of 12 years, he is notified. In the case of a minor over the age of 12 years, the consent of the minor is required.

During the committee meeting, the representative of the Minister also noted that the possibility of not including an interrogation should be ⁇ ined. Thus, an amendment was submitted in response to this and stipulates that an interrogation shall be included, “unless the Prosecutor of the King or the Investigative Judge, in a reasoned decision, considers otherwise, taking into account the circumstances of the case and in the interest of the minor”.

Third, professional secrecy and the extension of the right of speech. This chapter was the longest discussion in the Justice Committee. The bill aims to extend the right to breach the professional secret in two cases. On the one hand, it is sexual abuse committed against minors, which is notified to the holder of the professional secret by the perpetrator or a third party. On the other hand, the scope is extended to all potential victims and is no longer limited to situations where there is a serious and imminent threat to the integrity of the person concerned.

Furthermore, the proposal provides that any person who fails to exercise his right to inform while meeting the conditions for deviating from the professional secret may be guilty of failing to provide assistance to a person in need, as provided for in Article 422bis of the Criminal Code.

According to Mr Landuyt, the proposal therefore provides for three elements: an abolition of professional secrecy, a right of speech and a guilty omission.

According to Mr. Terwingen, it has always been the intention to come to an extension of the reporting right. Article 422bis of the Criminal Code is not affected. Mr Terwingen is concerned that the construction in the text unintentionally creates a right of notification, which is actually introduced by Article 422a an obligation of notification.

Subsequently, a discussion will be held to clarify the text through two amendments. There is an amendment by Ms Becq and an amendment by Ms Van Cauter. According to Mrs Becq, her amendment aims to balance between professional secrecy and facts. As regards the guilty omission, the amendment clarifies that this provision applies, without prejudice to Article 422bis of the Criminal Code. Until now, professional secrecy could only be breached when the person obliged to do so was informed of the deliberate crimes by the victim himself. This condition is extended through the amendment. The professional secrecy may be breached when the perpetrators or third parties are notified of crimes. The professional secrecy may be violated when there is a serious and balanced risk that other minors or vulnerable persons referred to herein may become victims of the crimes listed in the Articles. That is why Mrs Becq proposes in her amendment that the aid provider should have strong evidence that there is a serious and imminent danger to the physical and psychological integrity of other minors or vulnerable persons.

Mrs Becq considers it important to take on the terminology currently used in Article 458bis of the Criminal Code, namely “a serious and imminent danger”, adding, in order to avoid difficulties in interpretation, that there must be “a serious and real risk”.

Mr Van Cauter also submitted his amendment no. 22 to 22. It reminds the members of the committee that all members of the special committee have emphasized that the primary priority is to protect potential victims as well. Consequently, the special committee has decided on a way to extend the right of speech. The field workers correctly pointed out to the applicants a number of technical imperfections that should be corrected anyway. A first observation pointed to the fact that the extension of the right of speech should not involve an obligation of speech. He therefore proposes to clarify them. Furthermore, the member recalls that the special committee agreed to clarify to potential victims that there must be a serious and real danger. According to the speaker, a problem would arise if one ran behind the suggestion of Mrs Becq, who wants to be clarified that there must be significant indications of a serious and imminent danger. This would mean that the aid provider must first know the facts and only then can break the professional secret. Mrs Van Cauter therefore proposes to remove the words “serious indications” and to retain the words “a serious and real danger”.

Mrs De White notes that everyone agrees that the right to speak should be expanded. In connection with Mrs Becq’s amendment, she asks what should be understood by the term ‘important indications’. In practice, it will not be easy for an investigative judge to determine whether there were serious indications.

Is the proposed provision not contrary to Article 422a, which does not provide for instructions and which applies to all persons, regardless of whether or not they are holders of a professional secret?

Mr. Van Hecke replicates that the committee is better to stay with the initial text of the bill. He will therefore not support Mrs Becq’s amendment.

Mr. Van Hecke points out that the duty to speak has never been a viable card. The present bill also does not impose the obligation to speak. The recommendations of the special committee have led to a balanced solution.

Finally, the Minister’s representative also states that there is a difference between the words “danger” and “risk”. For example, a supervisor from an institution that is in the room of a minor can be a danger. On the other hand, it is sufficient that he works in an institution with minors, in order to constitute a risk.

Articles 422bis and 458bis do not have exactly the same subject matter. Someone bound by professional secrecy must help in great danger. However, help can be done in different ways and with grades. Professional secrecy protects the whole society and not only the victims.

Thus, the committee reached a final text. The amended article was adopted unanimously.

Ms. Deom will now present the continuation of the report.

The part of the report I am going to present is about Articles 7 to 12.

However, I would like to briefly return to Article 6, which has just been exposed by Ms. Van Vaerenbergh, relating to professional secrecy. I did this because there was an error in the French translation. It is easier for me to correct this mistake. It should be clarified that it is important to speak of serious and real "danger" and not "risk" and that, in article 458bis of the Criminal Code as amended by the work carried out in commission.

Regarding Article 7, which aims to extend the scope of the incrimination of child pornography, Sophie De Wit explains that the amendment aims to end a problem of interpretation of existing legislation. The current article speaks of possession of child pornographic material. The question therefore arises of the equivalence of this term with the notion of consultation. The terms “access” allow to provide the required precision.

Mrs. Lilly and Mr. Giet submit an amendment to clarify that it must be a voluntary access to a pornographic site. The Minister’s representative stresses that the Court of Cassation already interprets the article in this way and that it speaks of knowledgeable access.

A new amendment is therefore submitted to reintroduce this terminology. The amendment and the amended article are adopted unanimously.

I come back to Articles 8 and 9 relating to sexual assault sets and the exploitation of the information collected, including DNA data. This text is to be read in parallel with the draft law amending the Code of Criminal Investigation and the law of 22 March 1999 concerning the procedure for identification by DNA analysis in criminal matters, text of which we have just discussed and which will be submitted to vote tomorrow. There must therefore be a concordance between the provisions provided for in the bill we are discussing now and in the bill I have just cited. In this context, Sophie De Wit et consorts submit amendments to ensure this consistency.

These amendments and the amended articles shall be adopted unanimously.

Article 10 relates to the extension of the provision of the court for the execution of penalties.

by Mr. Stefaan Van Hecke explains that this article aims to correct an anomaly in legislation. Disposal is imposed for the heaviest sentence imposed. This article always allows the availability in case of conviction for sexual abuse. Article 34c of the Criminal Code, which will enter into force on 1 January 2012, uses the term "main punishment". However, the provision must not take into account whether it is a main punishment or an accessory punishment. The representative of the Minister recommends that the proposed wording be amended. It suggests adapting the text of Article 34quater of the Criminal Code in such a way that the making available can always be pronounced in the event of concourse of offences. Ms De Wit et consorts therefore submit an amendment in order to correct the text in this sense. The amendment is adopted unanimously and the amended article is adopted by 15 votes for and one abstention.

Article 11 relates to the declaration of a injured person, which aims to simplify the formalities for the filing of a declaration of a injured person.

Ms. Lalieux et consorts submit an amendment aimed at inserting a new provision to provide for systematic information on the possibility of declaring yourself injured and the submission of the ad hoc form when submitting a complaint to a police officer. Even if a circular of the College of General Prosecutors already provides for these rules, they should be included in the law. The Minister’s collaborator also proposes a technical correction and the Commission supports it. The amendment is adopted by 15 votes for and one abstention and the article as amended is also adopted by 15 votes for and 1 abstention.

Article 12 is intended for entry into force. A technical amendment is submitted by Ms. Lalieux et consorts. The amendment and the amended article are adopted unanimously.

Finally, the whole proposal of law thus corrected and amended is adopted by 15 votes for and 1 abstinence.

For the rest, I refer to my written report, Mr. Speaker.

This is an important bill. I will not go further into its content, which has been sufficiently discussed by the rapporteurs.

It is important that we unanimously send a political signal to society, which has been very sympathetic to the meetings of the special committee. Three months after the follow-up committee was established, legislative proposals are already in place.

These are not just legislative proposals, but they are legislative proposals that really matter. It is seen that they are supported by all the political groups in this Parliament. They are not just a signal, but they are the result of good and conscious choices that we have made in the various elements of this one bill, which actually brings together seven bills.

I will briefly explain what is important to my group.

First, the limitation period is extended. The hearings of the special committee have shown that victims often take some time before they can go to court. They must overcome certain thresholds. Therefore, it is a good choice to extend the limitation period, although it should not be extended indefinitely, because such a file becomes more and more difficult. The victims should not think that they now have all the time; it must be clear that they must indeed take action as soon as possible. This is the signal of the policy towards the victims and society.

Second, there is the set of sexual aggression. This has already been discussed by the rapporteurs. That set existed for a long time, but was apparently not well known. It was already included in a draft by Minister Smet. It is a good system that allows to immediately make certain determinations on the victim’s body. However, the victims at that time often saw that no further follow-up was given; the DNA was not further examined. It is good that the victims now know that the found DNA must be examined, unless the prosecutor or the investigation judge reasonably deviates from it.

Thirdly – and this point also makes it clear that in the committee and in the special committee it has always been acting in the victim’s interest – the victim is kept informed. Although it seems to be a formality, the injured person’s statement now results in the victim being kept informed of the entire criminal procedure. In addition, the declaration of the injured person can now be made easier. Thus, in an administratively simple way, it is now ensured that the victim is ⁇ informed of the criminal investigation.

Fourth and last, as regards the extension of the reporting right, the views in the report are correctly represented.

At the social level, the discussion has begun to turn around the introduction of a reporting obligation. I would like to emphasize that this was not the intention of the Commission. After all, both in the committee and in the special committee we have heard well that the introduction of a reporting obligation could be problematic for the sector, because some victims might then no longer dare to step into that sector. That cannot be the intention.

Therefore, I refer to an article that appeared today in The Standard, which emphasizes that the medical service providers, the healthcare providers, should not be afraid at all of this bill. There would be some unrest there. It seems that they are now looking blindly – as it is also literally stated in that article – at the possibility that they would be prosecuted on the basis of Article 422, which relates to non-notification or guilty omission. Article 422 was in the old law and is still in the law. Guilty omission is a legal term that, of course, remains valid. However, healthcare providers should not blindly look at the existence of this danger. Rather, they must well understand that it was the intention of the committee to provide additional elements and weapons, including to the aid workers, for the fight against sexual abuse of weaker persons and of minors. These additional weapons will make it easier for them to assume their responsibilities. They should not be blind to the fact that they may be prosecuted, but should be pleased that they can give away their professional secrecy in a more flexible and comprehensive way, in order to help victims speak, if possible report.

I think this is a good solution. The text, which was eventually accepted in consensus, does indeed contain that intention.

Mr. Speaker, it must be emphasized that in the course of the work carried out in the Committee on the Monitoring of Sexual Abuse, despite the difficulties and technical sensitivities of each other, we have reached a comprehensive agreement on topics that are extremely difficult on the technical level, I repeat, but also in terms of the choice of measures to be put forward in the first place.

The Commission on Sexual Abuse concluded its work in March last year with 70 recommendations. Today, we are submitting a bill, which takes "only," some will say, some of these recommendations. The fundamental reason for this is that we wanted, immediately following our findings and recommendations, to choose the most interesting, most successful proposals, those on which we had already worked technically longer, more deeply and which had been the object of consensus.

This is why the document on the banks lists six or seven proposals, which should respond by improving criminal legislation to a better approach to the problem of sexual abuse of minors and pedophilia in an authority relationship.

I cannot fail to emphasize that the first proposal is a flagship proposal, an important proposal, which has been unleashed very quickly from our work and which concerns the extension of the prescription for the acts of morals and of pedophilia with regard to children under age to a duration of 15 years, the one that is practiced for the crimes not correctionalizable, given the fact that the victims, who are the subject of these atrocious abuses, are marked for the rest of their life in their flesh and in their psyche and have enormous difficulties to free their speech and to say what it has been of the aggression they have been the object of.

With regard to audiovisual recording, we also wanted to improve criminal legislation while ⁇ ining a balance between the organizational capabilities of the police services and the possibility that they now have on Belgian territory to practice these audiovisual recordings on demand.

This practical situation is therefore taken into account, but it is attempted to encourage the magistrates who intervene in these cases to resort as systematically as possible, in the best possible conditions, to the audiovisual recording of minors.

This should prevent them from having to repeat heavily, repeatedly, the facts and circumstances in which the facts to which they were subjected were committed.

With regard to professional secrecy, the discussion was very tense; and I turn my head to Carina Van Cauter: she was the working ankle of the final point of our reflections on this subject.

There too, the aim was the balance: to ensure that professional secrecy is not an alibi allowing professionals to hide behind this legal prohibition to refuse to disclose the facts of sexual abuse committed on minors when they are aware of it, either by the minor himself or by a third party, and also to allow these professionals to continue to work properly in their respective professions; I am talking about doctors, lawyers, social workers and all those who usually intervene in such circumstances, as anyone brought to receive confidentiality regarding sexual abuse on minors, within the framework of their profession.

The balance was very difficult to find. We wanted professional secrecy to continue to exist and provide professionals with the opportunity to work with confidence towards their confidants, while at the same time being safe, legally speaking, when necessary and as prescribed by law, to follow the law and report to the authority the acts of sexual abuse committed on a minor child, whether they are aware of it either by the minor himself or by a third person.

The link established in our work, obvious to us, between the protection of professional secret and – in the event that the secret depositary does not use the legal channel to denounce the fact – the possibility in his head to be prosecuted on the basis of article 422bis of the Criminal Code for non-assistance to anyone in danger, has been best articulated to keep the balance. In fact, we determine that there is a possibility for the depositary, when certain elements such as “danger”, “risk”, “imminent”, “grave”, as many terms used in the new formulation of article 458bis, appear, to free himself safely from his professional secrecy. If he does not, he will be prosecuted for not assisting anyone in danger. This is well recalled.

I will conclude with the statement of the injured person, which, for me, is fundamental.

The fact is that this statement of injured person is insufficiently used. We would like to insist once again that it should be used systematically and that it would allow anyone to declare themselves “injured” at the first contact with the police or judicial authorities, which gives them rights, in particular to get acquainted with all the stages of the procedure that will be followed and in the context of which they may eventually, if the law allows them to do so, make sure to obtain the damages and interests to which they could claim.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I insist, from a technical point of view, on a drafting element of the text concerning the injured person, in Article 11, Chapter 8, of the bill that is submitted to you. The last paragraph of this article is not correct. In fact, it is worth reading – and I clung to the Dutch translation to correct the French text: “If the declaration is received by the police secretariat or the police official who prepares the minutes, it is forwarded without delay to the secretariat of the public prosecution.”

I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I concluded my speech in May 2011 with myself, thanking you all and all actors, expressing my appreciation for those who spoke, expressing my appreciation for those who have been victims of sexual abuse, and wishing with the commissioners, out of love for the quality of life, the courage to put into practice the good report, which was drawn up under the expert presidency of Mrs. Lalieux.

Today there is a first bill, which translates seven recommendations into a law. The current bill is hopefully only the first in a series of bills, which will undoubtedly follow.

You have from me and from my group at least the commitment that we will not leave it with that one, present legislation. We will continue to work on the implementation of the other recommendations from the report of the special committee.

Colleagues, some have urged to convert all recommendations into legislative work at once. However, this was unfortunately impossible, given the short time period that remained before the recession.

After all, it is a conclusion that, on the one hand, a number of recommendations need to be further understood. On the other hand, it is undoubtedly important to examine and check with the actors in the field whether it is possible to immediately proceed to the concrete fulfillment of what the legislator expects from them.

We have done this with the proposed legislation, which has led us to the idea of a transitional period. For example, there are still not sufficient suitable premises available for the audiovisual interrogation. However, we have received from the Minister of Internal Affairs in this regard the commitment that its administration will be able to provide the necessary adjustments and provisions by a certain date fixed in the bill.

There was no need for a transitional period for the declaration of the injured person, since in that case the police are able to immediately do what is necessary in the matter.

Today, therefore, we are converting only seven recommendations into legislative work. We absolutely do not want to leave it here.

Our position regarding the limitation period is well-known. It is sufficient to refer to a previous legislative initiative. I have said it in the committee and I will repeat it again. I can give understanding to the parents of missing children, whose disappearance very often has to do with sexual abuse, who are loudly wondering who actually serves a limit. They wonder whether we should still have a limitation period at all, and whether we should not rather come to an abolition or abolition of the limitation period. I repeat once again that I understand the emergency cries of those parents.

The evidence collection, on the one hand, and the punishment, on the other, solve the question of whether or not a person should escape the criminal court when he is effectively the perpetrator of such life crimes or crimes that fundamentally affect a person’s physical integrity. But that was not the commission’s task. We have sought a worthy alternative within the tasks assigned to us. On the one hand, we had to respect the specific needs of victims of sexual abuse and, on the other hand, we naturally took into account the current coherence regarding the limitation period, which led to the extension of the limitation period to 15 years, which was borne by all the political groups and all members of the committee. I think that is a good compromise.

I will come back to something I said in the introduction, namely that we should not look at the measures individually. When the remaining recommendations of the committee are implemented, longer limitation periods will hopefully no longer be needed. If, on the one hand, prevention is invested and, on the other hand, the threshold for access to assistance and justice has been lowered, as recommended in the report, the abolition of the limitation period will be less than today or no longer necessary. One cannot do without the other. The measures should be considered as a whole.

Colleagues, the report made it very clear that the severity and persistence of sexual abuse could largely be explained by the secrecy surrounding the sexual abuse.

It is clear that professional secrecy has too often served as an alibi to be silenced, even though it was about completely unacceptable facts. In response, we have introduced the new concept of the right of speech, which gives the holder of the professional secret, whether he is a doctor, a caregiver or even a priest, the right to report, not only when the victim, but also when the perpetrator or a third party addresses him, not only to protect the minor victim, but also, preventively, when there are indications of serious and actual danger to the minor or any vulnerable person.

Colleagues, I also refer to an article in The Standard, from a slightly earlier date. I refer to the example that was cited there. When a woman had entrusted her doctor to hear abnormal sounds from the room of her daughter and son-in-law and thought that the child was being abused, that doctor asked if he should go to the police with that information, knowing that the woman is hallucinating.

That is a wrong question. The question we wanted to answer is the following. If an average physician with average knowledge becomes aware of certain facts, which qualify facts as sufficient indications of a serious and real danger, and goes to the police, can that physician still be subjected to a sentence of six months imprisonment? If the law is passed today, it will no longer be the case in the future. As I read the article with the question question, I effectively realized that doctors are not an extension of the investigative judges or are not investigative judges; they are not an extension of Justice.

What we wanted to do is that doctors can effectively use the right of speech without themselves being subject to further criminal prosecution.

There is a social need for that right of speech. When I hear a doctor say, or read about him in the newspaper, that he should then go to the Justice every week, then the awareness grows in me that there is an effective need for an extension of the right of speech and that we have rightly moved to the introduction.

At the same time, as also colleague Terwingen has said, the impression cannot arise that today there is only a right of speech and that the duty of speech would be abolished. That is not correct. Article 422 – colleague Marghem correctly cited it – remains unshorted. It means that everyone, and not just a doctor, who faces an actual and imminent danger, must take action. That action may possibly exist in the fact that we effectively take action to the police and justice. This is a task, not only for the aid provider, but for everyone who is socially confronted with an imminent and current danger.

Colleagues, the work is not finished, but we have at least achieved an important transposition of the report, namely seven recommendations from the report, which should be translated into legislation in its entirety. After the recession, we will undoubtedly still have to make a lot of effort and show listening readiness. We will also have a lot of writing work to translate the whole into legislation.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the CDH is, of course, associated with all the texts that are reflected in the bill proposal which we discuss this morning.

Together with all the speakers and all the members of both the special committee and the Justice committee, I am delighted that we have been able to reach a text that takes into account the wishes of the special committee and materializes the willingness to work in consensus, if necessary, after credible and serious discussions within these two committees.

Since this has already been done, I will not review all points of the proposal. Instead, I will stop, for respect for the relationship and the beauty of the gesture, to the problem of professional secrecy, an element that has kept us breathing in the Justice Committee.

The context is that of the Special Committee and its Recommendation No. 16, which called for four amendments to Article 458bis of the Criminal Code, namely three substantive amendments and a change of form.

The three substantive amendments aim to extend the scope of this provision. Indeed, the special commission wanted that the faculty to inform the King’s Prosecutor be recognized to the holders of the professional secret; it is the right of speech. This recognition applies not only in the event that the victim of one or more of the offences concerned is a minor, but also in the case that it is a vulnerable person, not only in the event that the custodian of the trade secret has been aware of the commission of one or more of the offences concerned through the victim itself, but also when the facts have been revealed to him by the perpetrator or by a third party, and not only in the event that there is a serious and imminent danger to the physical or mental integrity of the victim itself, but also in the event of a serious and real risk that other minors or other vulnerable persons are victims of the offences concerned.

The fourth amendment is more formal, as I said to you. It was suggested to move at the end of Article 458bis, the reference to Article 422bis of the Criminal Code, in order to better clarify that the person who does not use his duty to inform, while the conditions of the derogation from professional secrecy are met, can be guilty of not assisting anyone in danger.

Obviously, the wording in the bill on this latter point and the review of the report of the special committee has caused many reactions within the sectors concerned and, in particular, within the aid sector in general. We all were aware of this. Our attention was drawn to the fact that this formulation could be interpreted as imposing on the holders of the professional secret the obligation to inform the Prosecutor of the King in the circumstances mentioned, subject to the penalty of becoming guilty of not assisting anyone in danger. This was not the intention of the committee. The latter did not wish to evolve Article 458bis of the Criminal Code into an obligation of systematic and mandatory denunciation in the head of the holder of the professional secret, hardly for him to no longer be able to properly exercise his profession.

Therefore, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, the Justice Committee adopted an amendment that incorporates, in the new Article 458bis, the reference to Article 422bis, as formulated in the current version of the provision. The solution seems to me quite appropriate. It helps to avoid doubts about the actual will of the legislator.

For the rest, the discussions focused mainly on the third substantive amendment made to Article 458a, which is to extend the faculty given by the latter to the hypotheses where there is a serious and real risk for other minors or vulnerable persons, sometimes referred to as “potential victims”. These discussions have led to the evolution of the original text of the bill on several points. First, there must be a danger rather than a serious and real risk for these victims. Then, the holder of the professional secret will have to have indications that such danger exists. Finally and above all, the holder of the professional secret shall be authorized to inform the Prosecutor of the King in the presence of indications of a serious and actual danger that other minors or vulnerable persons are victims of the relevant offences only when he will not be able to protect the integrity of the interested persons himself or with the help of third parties.

This last condition is included in the current text of Article 458bis of the Criminal Code, referring to the hypothesis where there is a serious and imminent danger to the integrity of the victim itself. It is a translation of the principle of subsidiarity. The possibility of informing the Prosecutor of the King may only be used when there is no other means of avoiding the danger, whether this means implies the intervention of the holder of the professional secret himself or requires the intervention of third parties. In short, it is up to the secret holder to find a solution to the major problem he knows.

The information of the Prosecutor of the King cannot intervene automatically. It is only the ultimate remedy. The priority is to help people. The actions carried out by the various stakeholders in the aid sector are therefore neither excluded nor devalued. On the contrary, their importance is emphasized, I think.

Extending the right of speech of the holder of the secret to situations where a danger exists for potential victims cannot go hand in hand with a waiver of the principle of subsidiarity. Nothing justifies that, when third parties are in danger, assistance to persons loses the priority recognized by the current article 458bis of the Criminal Code. Therefore, the original text of the bill posed difficulties as there was no reference to this principle of subsidiarity in relation to the situation of potential victims.

The amendment that has been adopted in the committee fills this gap. This is a significant improvement that has also helped to ⁇ and maintain consensus.

Now we have to finish other proposals. There is no doubt that all the parties will work in the same way as the one that has been adopted so far, which will enable us to quickly ⁇ all the recommendations of the special committee.

I would like to start with a correction. The media ⁇ last week that the Flemish Interest would have refrained from this bill because we were not involved in its creation. That is not true. We are not entering the cordon logic. I said that today. We never reject our attitude and our voting behavior.

We do not fully approve this bill because of what is not being realized. I can explain this simply and clearly as follows.

In terms of content, the proposal is a lap cover with cracks and fleece colors. It is in sharp contrast to the recommendations of the Committee on Sexual Abuse. It is unbalanced, it testifies to half work and the poor selection of the selected items is not even completely exhausted, starting with the extension of the limitation period from ten to fifteen years. Of course, we find that positive, as we, by the way, find all that this proposal contains positive, but it is too little.

The limitation period may be extended, but the problem of the complicated calculation of penalties is left untouched, in cases of sexual abuse, if there are multiple victims over several years and if a unit of intent can be held. There is a case of cassation, but the legislature should also intervene in that area, and that is not the case.

By the way, we would rather have seen a limitation period of up to fifty years. We even dare to advocate for the non-expiration of such crimes, but we know that this is not common practice in our legal system. Therefore, we limit ourselves to fifty years, rather a symbolic number, to keep the term running as long as possible and not to apply the law of forgetting in criminal law to crimes that are so serious and so serious.

We also have no problem with the extension of the right of speech, although at the end of the discussion in the committee there was a terminological cow trade to keep PS and CD&V at the last nippet of the case. I do not think that this will be harmful to the application of the law. I also agree that this does not impose an obligation to speak, but that it does indeed impose the responsibility on actors who are now held to the professional secret and sometimes can hide too sharply behind it.

In certain cases there will ⁇ be an exception, but we do not think that here a witch hunt is opened on aid workers and related professions and people who are engaged in the problem in general.

This is immediately a point of criticism. We should not think that this right of speech will immediately cause an influx of aid workers to go to court. By the way, that is not the intention either. Then it would really be a duty to speak and it would be experienced as pressure. This is a provision that, in my opinion, will only sort a marginal effect and it should not be more than that, let that be clear.

The extension of the criminalization of child pornography, namely to the mere possession of it, with of course the intention to possess, is a good thing. However, we wanted to go a little further and address the problem of webcams sex with minors, as well as the virtual child pornography, i.e. porn in which children are not really involved, but in which there is suggestion of child pornography.

That was once a delicate point of discussion in a draft of then Minister Verwilghen. There has been a strong discussion about it, but it has never been discarded and the law has never been adjusted in that area. This is now left here again.

We agree on the reduction and registration of DNA of suspects and convicts. This has already been discussed; it relates to the bill of the latter.

We have criticisms about the absence. One should not underestimate the failure to transpose into laws a number of matters included in recommendations.

Since we were not involved in the drafting of the proposal, you will grant us the right to return to the views we took before we approved the recommendations of the committee, since we were now again excluded from the discussion. We regret that, but well, it is a political choice.

Specifically, we regret that the possibility for a judge to impose a residential ban on convicted pedophiles is not registered in the law. During the discussion, there was even the case in Adinkerke, where children who were abused by a pedophile still live next to the perpetrator. The perpetrator has been ordered by the judge to move, but he cannot be sanctioned for this, which is a manco.

There is also no reporting obligation, which requires convicted persons to disclose their place of residence after they have served their sentence, so that they can be tracked and clearly monitored.

There is no reporting right for the prosecutors to notify convictions to associations in which pedophiles work, such as to employers, especially if the convicted are in contact with children at their employer.

There is also no exclusion of honor restoration, which was one of our proposals. This was not included in the recommendations. We are in favor of the exclusion of honor restoration for pedophiles.

There is no right to information for parents. We do not propose anything like Megan’s Law in the United States, the law that came into force after a girl was murdered by a pedophile who had previously been released. Her parents did not have the opportunity to verify whether a perpetrator lived near them and that resulted in their child becoming the second victim of a convicted pedophile. We regret that parents are unable to inform themselves about pedophiles living in their neighborhood or near the school of their children, although this information does not need to appear with name and surname on a website.

There is also no penalty leverage for sexual offenses, although this is reasonably often insisted from the case-law. There is no automatic lifetime disposal for very serious sexual offenders. We would have liked to see it differently, because we think that these people should be kept very careful.

There are no conditions for compulsory treatment in exchange for preferential values and modalities of punishment enforcement. We believe that a person who is guilty of moral crimes against minors can only claim imprisonment leave or electronic surveillance – the home detention being made – when that person wants to undergo treatment that leads to the cessation of criminal conduct in the future.

All our amendments with those measures were not accepted and therefore we fear for the efficiency and effectiveness of the present bill. I am only a rural boy, colleagues; in my backyard a lot of beasts crawl and walk and fly. They are not all equally beautiful, and the usefulness of some is clear only to the Creator. This is also the case with this bill. I find this beast ugly and thin. It has nine legs and wears a hat with the logos of all parties. It proves immediately that a consensus in such a large group of all kinds of political imagination, when it comes to it, cannot fulfill promising recommendations such as those of the Special Committee on Sexual Abuse.

It is said that there will be more and that this is only a first step. I am afraid that only the greatest common dealer has been taken in a very broad political spectrum. Of course, everything then becomes flater, flatter and more blurred.

We are not against what is included in the text, far from. But it is too little, too weak and too incomplete. That is why we will abstain.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, considering the many wise words that have already been said here, I will keep it brief and try to limit myself to the essence.

Allow me to emphasize in advance that I am glad that eight months after the establishment of our committee and four months after our report containing the recommendations, we can already come to this meeting with a first legislative proposal which has already included a number of measures to implement those recommendations.

It is about seven measures; so it is not necessarily a lean beast. The beast is there and it will grow gradually. I think there is still a lot of work on the shelf, but it will become a serious beast at the end of the ride. At least that is what I hope.

I would like to briefly outline a number of things that are essential for our group. First of all, I think of the limitation period, which we will extend to 15 years. We put ourselves at the same level as the other hardest facts. I think it is really important that we have given the victims some extra time. Today I would like to again call on those victims, please, not to run around with these affairs for 15 years and to go to justice or the aid service as soon as possible. There is extra time, but the faster you come, the greater the guarantee that the perpetrator will be found, prosecuted and convicted. I think that message should be repeated.

Second, the mandatory audiovisual interrogation of minors is very important for two reasons. First, this is very important in order to be able to assess the truthfulness of those statements. Second, it is a protection of the victims who have to make a very painful story and that now does not have to repeat until in the mourning. In the context of the investigation, this audiovisual interrogation can be used at any time.

The extension of the right to speak to persons bound by a professional secret is a third sensitive point. We have indeed debated this for a long time. First, I want to correct the misconception that this too much would cross the guilty lack of help. No, and that is a message that applies to every citizen of this country, because this punishment still applies to each of us. We all have a responsibility in this regardless of whether or not we are assistants, and whether or not we are bound by a professional secret.

We have tried to provide a way out for those who are bound by professional secrecy. They are often faced with a difficult and disruptive choice. They work on a trust-based basis with their patients, but they also learn certain facts. What now done? This is a very difficult choice, a difficult balance. We have tried to offer them a way out with the extension of the right of speech. I would like to emphasize that it is a right of speech, not a duty of speech. But again – this is important – we also hope that in this way the professional secrecy can no longer be an alibi to remain silent. This is essential for us.

Fourth, we need to go a little bit with our time and with this I mean the expansion of the criminalization of child pornography. It is bizarre, but in our country only physical possession is currently punishable, while technology allows much more. We just have to think about the internet. From now on, if one provides access via the Internet, knowingly and willingly of course, one will be punishable. So we are evolving with it, although I think this will only be the tip of the iceberg. There is still a lot of work to be done in the field of technology, as there are many other possibilities through the new technologies. I have to give the previous speaker the right. However, colleague Schoofs, we have just begun and we are just going on. You will still see.

Fifth, regarding sexual aggression – this has already been cited – it is indeed important, when DNA is taken that is not examined, that at least the victim is informed of it. It should also be explained why it is not investigated. That speaks for itself.

Sixth, the extension of the provision for the Criminal Enforcement Court. This is a solution to a very bizarre situation: when one becomes guilty of various facts, including moral facts, but also others, now does not necessarily follow a disposal. If one case has clearly emerged in the commission, it is that a follow-up of offenders during their punishment or after punishment turned out to be a pain point. With the present proposal, regardless of the number of crimes, as soon as there is a moral crime in between, the dispatch follows. This is important for guidance and succession, but above all it is an additional protection for our society.

Finally, our seventh measure. The declaration for the injured person now becomes much easier for the victim. That was what we all had to do. We wanted to lower the high threshold for justice. This is not a lean beast. It is an efficient measure.

Dear colleagues, this is a first step. There are only seven. There are still followers. Our work has just begun. It should not be half work. It must not be a thin beast, colleague Schoofs. Once the work in the committee is restarted, we must continue so that we can present a new package on these tables as soon as possible. I hope it can happen in the same constructive atmosphere and across all party boundaries.

Mr. Speaker, these are important days with the discussion today and the vote tomorrow on a first package of measures to implement the recommendations of the special committee. The numerous speakers and journalists have already extensively addressed the issue.

I would like to talk only about professional secrecy, which has been a rather sensitive point in the discussions of the last days and weeks. The professional secrecy is undergoing a major change. There was a lot of headache about this in the press and in the industry. There have also been a lot of misunderstandings that have been corrected in the last few days. Fortunately, there are other voices in the debate. I refer, like other colleagues, to the Vrije Tribune of Mrs. Kristine Kloeck and a colleague who appeared today in De Standaard.

They point out that the proposal resolutely chooses the interests of victims of sexual abuse. This was also the intention of this committee. We should not be ashamed that our measures aim to protect victims of sexual abuse as much as possible. We know that it will be an adaptation for many people. The Church must urgently adapt to the procedures. Emergency workers and doctors will also need to reorganize themselves and deal with such facts differently. We do not have to be afraid of change. It is only through change that we can take a step further.

The professional secrecy is preserved, we do not touch it. There is no obligation to speak and there is no obligation to report but, as Ms. Kloeck says very clearly, now the rescue workers have all the tools to actually take responsibility for the victims.

That is the most important. That is the goal we had in mind.

At the same time, doctors are also asked for a contact point that serves as a bridge between doctors and justice. Indeed, there are already many consultation platforms and resources, but I think it is a good thing that doctors and care providers can also be guided and have a point of contact to consult with each other, and to create a bridge function with Justice, so that the doctor and care provider are not alone when they are faced with difficult issues of sexual abuse.

Colleagues, this bill is ⁇ not an end point, but a starting point, because there are still many important recommendations to be implemented. Anyone who says that this work is too slow or insufficient is mistaken. This is a solid package of measures to protect minors.

If we look in history to the reports of investigative committees and special committees, to the speed at which recommendations have been implemented, then I think that in this file very quickly work has been done. I think we should look a long way to find reports, where seven recommendations are already translated into law within three to four months. I think this is a unique situation.

We look forward to the next series of translations of the recommendations. We will continue to work on this in a constructive way.

I would like to conclude with a nice quote from Mrs. Kloeck’s text in The Standard, when she talks about professional secrecy: “Break the silence. As a doctor, assistant, holder of the professional secret, take the responsibility not to let go of a suspicion of abuse. Consultation with colleagues and specialized organizations. Report to the court if necessary.”

This is essentially what we mean with this bill. I hope that we will be able to approve this with a large majority.

Mr. Speaker, since silence on this subject has been the biggest mistake in the past, I would like to take the opportunity to keep silence for a moment today.

I think that the most important of the seven measures of the 70 measures envisaged today is the treatment of professional secrecy. I think this has also been the crucial point in the past: the misunderstanding around confidential relationships that one builds, whether or not in good faith, and it too long silence.

I will not repeat what the bill means. I would like to emphasize that we all have some work to do, in particular with regard to the further development of the professional secrecy of those who need to cooperate with each other.

I think there is too much tension with what is done, for example, at community level in our country. There is a tendency towards an increasingly strict professional secrecy, while at the federal level we deal more with the repressive side and identifying what is wrong. This also creates tension around the professional secrecy of various professions that we have established in good faith.

I hold a plea to continue working in the same understanding on, for example, the shared professional secrecy. Our concern should be that it is clear to everyone that sexual abuse of weaker individuals is one of the worst crimes in our country and in the world.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill that is submitted to you translates not 70 but 15 recommendations, since the legislative work consists of 15 proposals. We had asked the various actors covered by the report, namely the Ministers of the Interior, Justice and Health, as well as the Communities and Regions and the ecclesiastical authorities, to act promptly. We also had to be present to translate these recommendations. We did the same. This is so much better for the work of this Parliament!

I am delighted and thank once again all the colleagues of the Sexual Abuse Monitoring Committee for having been able to work. Although the debates were sometimes lively, which is normal in this hall, they were always constructive. We were able to urgently submit this bill comprising seven important themes that were recalled by colleagues.

Ms. Carina Van Cauter recalled the extension of the prescription period to 15 years. However, it should not be forgotten that in the case of an interruptive or suspensive act, this period is extended to 30 years; this allows a child who has been abused to report the facts and see the penalty fall, in the case of an interruptive act, until he is 48 years old. This is an important step forward; however, it is recommended to all victims to speak as soon as possible and as soon as possible to the Justice, to enable the abuser to stop, punish, prevent recurrence and other victims.

I hope that the obligation of audiovisual recording of auditions will become a reality by 1 January 2013. The Minister of the Interior told us that it was possible.

Let me go back to the professional secret. The extension of the right of speech has aroused a lot of emotion among the holders of the professional secret. It was important for us to clarify the text of the recommendation already drafted in the report, so that it is no longer subject to multiple interpretations. The Commission has therefore adapted the text.

It should be recalled that there is no question of imposing an obligation to speak, but only of extending the right to speak of professionals, so that they can intervene, in the face of cases of conscience, in all serenity. The amendments to the current article 458bis of the Criminal Code are of three orders. They were reminded. This includes the extension to vulnerable persons, the extension to confidentiality by the authors or by third parties or in case of serious and actual danger for other minors or vulnerable persons.

These changes will facilitate the work of professionals if they are in an inextricable or too delicate situation for them to treat it personally.

Nevertheless, as was repeated by my colleagues, these changes are not intended to justify all situations. As many speakers have stressed in the committee, a work of collaboration, partnership and complementarity must be carried out between the judiciary and the assistance services of the Communities and Regions.

The fourth amendment concerns the extension of the incrimination of child pornography. It was important to clarify the text, as a recent Court of Cassation judgment highlighted. The set of sexual assault will directly complement the law discussed a moment ago.

Finally, the declaration of the injured person is important because it simplifies the formalities for filing a personalized declaration. Again, we think of the victim: at all times, she has been at the center of our concerns in order to be better informed of the procedure and to remain also the center of interest of judicial actors, both police and prosecutors or judges.

For the first time, and this is important, a special committee is realized quickly, but nevertheless in a thoughtful manner, an important series of recommendations issued just a few weeks ago. We hope that, this time again, we will send through these votes a strong and clear signal of support to the victims expressing our determination to deal with child abuse.

I also recall the ongoing work of the experts designated by the Chamber and the experts designated by the ecclesiastical authorities to establish the arbitral tribunal in a concrete way. It will allow compensation for victims whose affairs are prescribed. I hope it will be effective in October.

Thank you Mrs. We can congratulate you for the way you lead this work.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join your congratulations to the members who submitted the bill, to the rapporteurs, to the Special Committee and to the Committee on Justice. The Chairman of the Committee is no longer present. However, there has been very hard work in the Justice Committee over the past year. The present text is also an excellent example of how important steps can be taken across party boundaries.

I consider the present text to be an important, complementary part of the whole of initiatives taken in the past on sexual delinquency and the care of the victim. However, the text contains new, additional steps.

I make a distinction between a set of measures of legislative nature, such as the adjustment of the limitation period. I have always agreed to a fifteen-year limit. I also agree with the proposal to examine how the professional secrecy is further developed. I also fully agree with the extension of the right of speech.

It is correct – this can only be repeated – that we must now consider how we can further guide the cooperation between the Justice Department and the entire aid sector. We must examine how we can accompany the existing texts, as well as possible new texts on shared professional secrecy and cooperation. Steps have already been taken. Protocols have already been concluded, if I can use the word ‘protocol’ for a moment, Mrs. Speaker. However, the cooperation will need to continue.

It is also the final word of Christine Kloeck in her article in The Standard of Today, in particular that we must examine how we take new initiatives in this area.

Therefore, on the above-mentioned level, some things are very important, just like other aspects regarding the criminalization of child pornography are very important, additional steps.

Finally, I am committed to working with you. After all, the text contains a number of things that need to be carried out and set up on the ground. The Minister of Internal Affairs was referred to. I would also like to participate, however, because the discussion about audiovisual recordings is constantly coming back. In the context of the Salduz Act, it was discussed that we must organize all the infrastructure, both of the police and of the Justice, in order to make much more use of audiovisual resources. I also take the organization for my account.

We will also have to respond very operatively to sexual aggression and to the legislation on DNA.

I would like to conclude with the statement of the injured person. What is included in the present text on this subject is an important principle, which theoretically already existed. Participants could already report at different times. In the above text, however, some things are made much more precise and much more principled.

It will now be the art to respect the victim throughout the entire procedure, both from the police and from the court. We often agree that an effort is made at the beginning, but that in a file that sometimes takes years, the attention to the victim sometimes weakens. This principled affirmation of the declaration of the injured person is, in my opinion, a very explicit reflection of the victim’s role, capabilities, responsibilities, as well as rights. In practice, we will have to follow this.

In conclusion, this is good supplementary legislation. It is a good incentive for all services to make further efforts on the ground. The government will give all its support, thanking for the work done.