Proposition 53K2999

Projet de loi portant diverses dispositions en vue d'améliorer le statut de la victime dans le cadre des modalités d'exécution de la peine.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Aug. 20, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

prisoner law relating to prisons legal status social rehabilitation victim help for victims criminal procedure penalty prison system alternative sentence carrying out of sentence release on licence

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Party dissidents ¶

• Bert Schoofs (VB) abstained from voting.

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. 7, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Carina Van Cauter, rapporteur, refers to her written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, even as a member of the opposition, dare and I can say that there is no insignificant bill here today.

The Minister of Justice is not present.

The government is present. You can continue.

Mr. Speaker, I said that I do not consider it an insignificant bill. The important regulation concerning the rights of victims in the context of a proceedings relating to a conditional release before the Criminal Enforcement Court is extended.

Everyone will undoubtedly remember the elevator and the reactions of the victims in the case of Michèle Martin or Marc Dutroux, where they were serious facts; too often victims need to hear such decisions through the press.

As a result, our group has also called for something to do about this. Mrs. Minister, you listened well, because you did something about it. I will not report, but I will briefly explain what it is about. I will only address the most important aspects.

At a session of the Criminal Enforcement Court where the conditional release of a detainee is judged, the victims will now be involved in the proceedings. They will not become a party, but there will be a victim moment in the procedure, where they will be able to find out what the victim-bound conditions are. They can then express their point of view and even formulate questions.

We are happy that there is such a victim moment. It is very important that victims are involved without being a party. This way they get the necessary information.

The definition of “victim” is also extended in the draft law. There is also a faster communication. This is not insignificant; as soon as the criminal enforcement court has taken a decision, the victim is informed as soon as possible. With regard to the informatization of Justice, it is very important that this can be done not only by letter, but also by e-mail. Here, therefore, all that is not possible in many other procedures. Let it be a start for much more.

It is time for the victim to have a better place in the procedures. This has been promised for a long time.

The bill is even better than expected. As part of the discussion of the draft law on the tightening of the conditional release, we had already submitted some amendments in this sense, but they were then rejected by the majority. Today, however, we note that some of our amendments have been incorporated into the present bill, namely those on faster and better communication and those on the possibility for the victim to know the conditions imposed on a detained person who is released.

There is always a but. After all, it is the law on the external legal status, a law that will soon celebrate a beautiful birthday, but which is still not fully applied to this day.

Again, the legislation on the legal status is selectively acting. The entry into force of a very large part of this legislation has been postponed by the government until after 2015. What are we actually doing here? We make people happy and promise them everything, but in the meantime we postpone the measures.

It is no different with the present regulation, because many articles from the proposed bill will not enter into force until 2015. That is dangerous, because in the meantime a lot can change and articles can be changed, even without ever getting implemented. This is not the right way of working.

Another “but” relates to the distinction between victims whose perpetrator must appear before the criminal enforcement court, and victims where this is not the case. This distinction is a problem. I think we should give all victims the same information.

Finally, Mrs. Minister, I also think that this is a missed opportunity. There is a victim moment, but the victim will not hear what is proposed until at the hearing. I think we should inform the victim a little better in advance. The victim does not need to have access to the file, as he or she is not a party, but he or she must be informed in advance of what exactly it will be about. It can be! After all, the opinion is in the file and an excerpt can be perfectly attached to the call.

We had submitted a bill in that sense. I have been so free, Mrs. Minister, to submit amendments today in order to amend that still. We want to give the victim the opportunity to know several days in advance – not longer than the perpetrator – what will happen and what will be proposed. In this way, the victim can properly prepare. One must stand there as a victim, whether or not accompanied by a lawyer, and hear on the spot what is being proposed. This is overwhelming, because the perpetrator, who has not been seen for years, is also there. I think the victim should be able to prepare for this. I think that is a right. Let us not do half work. Therefore, I have submitted an amendment on this subject again.

You say that a decision will be communicated quickly, even by e-mail. But just communicating is not enough. I think it is necessary to justify the decision. What does a victim have at a time in a session where he is allowed to give his vision, while he then gets a decision that decides something else without that being adequately explained. In fact, to be more detailed, the decisions of a criminal enforcement court do not need to be motivated to that extent. That is just as important. If victims want to understand what is being decided, the decision must also be explained.

We submitted two amendments. In the first amendment, we ask them to provide information in advance and in the second amendment to provide a reasoning when communicating the court’s decision. It should explain which conditions apply and why. Then the work is done, Mrs. Minister.

I therefore make a warm call to my colleagues in the Chamber to support our amendments. If this does not happen, then we will support the draft from the opposition, because it means progress. It could be even better.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the MR welcomes this project that fundamentally improves the status of victims in the framework of the terms of execution of the sentence. It is a good balance that has been found between the rights of the victims but also the rights of the convicted, without falling into the simplisms and excesses that this type of discussion could have brought.

On behalf of my group, I would like to highlight four measures in particular which we find ⁇ important. First, it is the extension of the notion of victim likely to participate in the manner of execution of the sentence. This issue has been the subject of long discussions in the committee and we have not forgotten to make this just balance between the current text and the result.

Secondly, during the hearing of the penalty enforcement court, there will be a moment entirely devoted to the subject of the victim. The victim will be able to motivate the conditions that it asks in its favor and place them in the context of his life, in particular psychological. It is the establishment of a dialogue, if I can express myself so, on the conditions of liberation taken in its interest. This is an extremely important step in taking the victim into account, at a crucial moment for the victim in the context of the evolution of the execution of the sentence, and I can not help thinking here of our late colleague, Jean-Pierre Malmendier, who would have been ⁇ satisfied with this measure.

Third, it is planned that, from now on, victims will be informed within 24 hours of the judgment. This is of course the least of things. It is quite normal for a victim to be informed of what is going to happen and that this information does not pass through the press or, worse yet, by a random encounter on the street. This very important element is provided in the law.

Finally, the draft provides that the efforts made by the convicted to compensate the victims will be taken into account by the penalty enforcement court to grant or not a conditional release. This measure prompts the convicted to compensate the victim and to do a healthy repair work for the victim and society.

For all these reasons, the Minister will support this project.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, we cannot say much wrong about the content of the present bill. Overall, this is positive. The category of “victims” is generally extended. There follows a notification to the victims in the event of a release, i.e. when the perpetrator is released, and that is in any case an improvement compared to before. The presence of the civil party at the meeting, although in very limited extent, is still somewhat guaranteed. A compensation to the victim by the perpetrator now gets a start of enforcement in the law. Usually these are vague descriptions and I think they will be subject to interpretation.

In general, it is too little, again a little too late. The design is not going far enough. I repeat what I said here two weeks ago in a nutshell, namely that the balance between the rights of the victims, on the one hand, and the rights of the perpetrators or suspects, on the other hand, slides further in the detriment of the victims.

Of course, I make a distinction between perpetrators and suspects; that must be done, because that is also a principle of the rule of law.

But Salduz I, if I mean the suspects, has already had a strong impact on that balance between suspects and victims, and Salduz II is yet to come. Therefore, the side of the suspects will have a serious advantage. It is then about the phase of the research and there the so-called little Franchimont still offers a bit of sunshine to this day, but not as we would like.

Now I come to those who have committed a crime and have been found guilty by a judge by judgment, i.e. the convicted. The current bill attempts to address the problem of the imbalance, and I would like to grant all the merits to that attempt, but it does not go far enough.

You also need to be in the victim’s position. The victim often does not distinguish between a suspect or a convicted. From a legal point of view, this must be done, because that is a principle of the rule of law, but in some way the victim must still be met. Thus, there must be an answer to what Salduz now strikes through our throat, although I know that this is not so simple legally. We all need to think about how we can improve the victim’s position in that procedure. Per ⁇ the law-Franchimont will eventually have to fully seize it.

In a rule of law, there are also victims, and those people should also have rights. Remember that many perpetrators, including by Salduz and all sorts of other formalities, will emerge from the dance. They will be effectively guilty but cannot be found guilty.

If we talk about execution – that’s what this bill is all about – if an effective conviction follows, the victim, despite the minister’s bill, is still too much in the cold. I’ll give an example: the detention plan that should be drafted for every detainee, but that’s still in the refrigerator because the law article has not yet been implemented. In that detention plan, which should guide every detainee to reintegrate into society, there is no mention of the victims. The Basic Law on the Legal Status of Prisoners has not yet provided for this. As I said, the article has not yet come into effect. Thus, the detention plan does not take into account the condition of the victims. This is a shortcoming and it is not being fixed now.

I can tell you that today, on 7 November 2013, we will submit an alternative to the bill that is being approved here. Vlaams Belang’s proposal goes much further and really tries to balance the victims with the convicted. We know that we are not going far enough yet. We will ⁇ support the amendments of the N-VA, but we do not think they go far enough either. We are doing everything we can to help the victims as much as possible. We provide for remedies for victims in criminal enforcement proceedings. We decide, however, to take into account a compensation for the bourgeois party, which in our proposal will be much stronger in its shoes. However, we are talking about access to the file and the right to be heard regarding the conditions imposed on the convicted. Furthermore, we have talked about the insight in the report of the judicial assistants and in the report of the opinions of the Prosecutor’s Office. We take care of that. We also provide for a cassation if necessary.

We also realize that we cannot fully accommodate the victims in this, but we do the most of all, which will make the victim less and less attracted to the shortest end.

The victim’s misappropriation is still in court and is being accelerated by European and international law.

When I hear about the meritorious bill on property penalties and the implementation thereof, I even hear colleagues from the majority take positions in front of you and Mr. Crombez, which makes me wonder what is being done now. Should we always emphasize those perpetrators, the convicted and the rights of those who are in fact wrong, or of whom at least a mistake can be suspected?

I regret that vision, I regret that philosophy, I regret that instigation of the members of the majority who, in fact, without themselves realizing it well, disregard the victims and also disregard the feeling that the victims have. I’m not saying that we should curate the emotions of victims, but if we brought the law already to a level where victims don’t feel disrespectful to a perpetrator, we would be far beyond. Here, today, this is not happening. Only our proposal could substantially resolve this problem. What is approved today will need to be improved in the future, and that can only be done on the basis of the alternative we submit today.

Our group will of course vote in favour. We ⁇ don’t want to overlook the perception that we would be against this bill and leave the victims in the cold, as malicious people would dare to explain. Our group will vote in favour, but I will abstain, as the main proponent of the bill on the victims as the Flemish Interest sees.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister of Justice, dear colleagues, as I said in the committee, there are projects that are voted with more joy than others, especially in the field of justice. This is part of it. This is a very good proposal, which was unanimously approved. I hear the positive points highlighted by each of the speakers.

I am all the more comfortable to say, Mrs. Minister, that I had with my colleagues from CD&V submitted a bill with the same objective. I am delighted that the government has been able to take these texts back and make it the project you are proposing to us today.

The concept of victim was already developed following the work of the special commission "Sexual Abuse". We were confronted with other ⁇ media cases, with the emojis of the public opinion. Today, we are taking another step in the place to give to the victims.

We are, in a very precise way, in the context of the application of penalties. The difficult balance that was to be found between the rights of the victim and those of the convicted person is, I think, achieved in this text. We all agreed to consider that the victim was not a full-fledged party in the proceedings before the court of enforcement of penalties but that she was also entitled to a place that needed to be consolidated and better clarified.

Our colleague Goffin correctly took the four advances of this text: the extension of the notion of victim, the obligation or recording of a contact moment for the victim during the judgment of the penalty enforcement court, the measures relating to the communication, which is said to be written and quick (within 24 hours) – during our work in the commission, I made it clear that any other faster means of communication could also be used – and the taking into account the effort of compensation initiated by the convicted person towards the victim. These are the four pillars of the reform proposed by this text that my group will support without difficulty.

However, Mrs. Minister, I take the opportunity to remind you, as I did in a committee, that I think that we will have definitively perfect the matter when we will have, from a threshold that is to be defined, given to the victim, as in the prosecutor’s office, rather than the current cassation appeal which is known to be essentially formal and has little interest for the parties concerned. This is usually the case before our courts. On occasion and depending on the available budgetary resources, this is a step that we will have to pass with serenity.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important bill aimed at greatly improving the victims’ position in the context of the punishment enforcement modalities.

Our country had already given much attention to the rights of the victim in the context of the execution of the penalty by the law of 17 May 2006. That was already a sensitive extension of the old law on the conditional release of 1998.

Now we are going one step further. Compared to other European countries, we give our country a very large role to the victims in the stage of the execution of the penalty. I think we should be proud of that.

There are four different aspects of the procedure. In this regard, I refer to the extensive report of the discussion in the committee.

I think today we are giving a very important signal to all the victims who must live a lifetime with a fact that has happened to them. We give them the place they deserve in the criminal enforcement courts.