Proposition 53K2675

Projet de loi modifiant l'article 162 du Code d'instruction criminelle.

General information ¶

Authors

Ecolo Juliette Boulet, Zoé Genot
Groen Stefaan Van Hecke

Submission date

Feb. 27, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

legal expenses criminal procedure

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Feb. 20, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, my group is ⁇ pleased with this bill that removes the obligation imposed on correctional judges or police judges to condemn the victim to the costs incurred by the State or by an accused if she succeeds, while it is she who has implemented public action.

This obligation under the Code of Criminal Instruction led to injustice, to which the MR had responded with a proposal of law fully incorporated in the text that we will vote today, we hope in any case.

Indeed, it is not because a party succeeds that it has initiated a public action in bad sense. It may happen that a defendant is acquitted for the benefit of the doubt or for a procedural reason, to which the civil party would be entirely alien.

Very specifically, the struggle of the MR dates back to a question, which arose as a result of a painful affair that took place in 2009. It was a violent rape. During the course of the proceedings, the victim had decided to take civil action and requested additional investigation duties related to DNA traces. The tasks were accomplished, but unfortunately, the DNA traces were no longer exploitable. In fact, the investigators had, as part of this procedure, made a mistake and had worked on a wrong piece of conviction.

The judge had to apply Article 162, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Instruction and sent the victim to pay a sum of 5 000 euros as judicial costs. This situation was obviously completely unfair. The text we propose today avoids this kind of drift and the amendment we vote for is undoubtedly a step forward for victims’ rights. We are delighted with this.

Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that I manage to get a bill passed; it is clear that my enthusiasm has hastened my ascension to the tribune!

In addition, this bill was not too delayed, for one time, since it was filed on 27 February of last year. This has progressed relatively well. I have to thank for this the colleagues of the Justice Committee who, in fact, also wished to see this case conclude quickly. He received a large number of votes, with only one abstention.

I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the young lady who raised this bill. In 2009, victim of a violent rape, she decides, unlike most of the victims, to go to file a complaint, to turn to the police, to go to the hospital to make the samples.

Despite her extreme difficulty in recovering, seeing that the police investigation is advancing very painfully, she decides to take a lawyer, to take civil proceedings and to follow the investigation. She thus realizes that, for example, the videos of the nearby shops were not requested as she had suggested from the outset, noting that several cameras may have filmed the rapist. Follow-up has not been done.

She realizes that the DNA tests have not been done. Through her lawyer, she asks for DNA traces to be analyzed. The police officer who makes the request requires the analysis of the bottom of the pants, fatally unusable. His lawyer must request that DNA analyses be done on the appropriate areas of the pants, which actually contain traces. Unfortunately, the whole case has been so delayed that the traces are useless.

The rapist will never be identified and the council chamber finds the non-location in the absence of an identified author. The judge finds himself in a completely overwhelming situation, which led to this proposal. He is obliged by the current law to condemn the victim to pay the costs of the investigation, i.e. 5 140 euros. This is indeed a completely absurd situation.

We submitted this bill so that the judge can judge from case to case. When the latter realizes that he is dealing with victims who are following the investigation but who have not requested extraordinary investigation duties, he must have the opportunity to say that the costs of the investigation should not be borne by those victims. This is the purpose of the proposal.

Allow me, now, to take advantage of my presence at this tribune to “push a blow.” As part of another rape investigation, the rape taxi driver case, we have a video recorded in a bank a year ago. However, this video was not presented to companies or taxi drivers to try to identify the person. It took a year for it to be released. Meanwhile, several other rape acts have been committed. One can only be scandalized in the face of this situation and say that in terms of priorities given, police and judicial investigations still leave much to be desired.

Finally, I would like to say that I hope that it will not only be on the occasion of March 8 that toning statements will be made on this subject.