Proposition 54K2087

Projet de loi modifiant le Code d'instruction criminelle et la loi du 22 mars 1999 relative à la procédure d'identification par analyse ADN en matière pénale, en vue de créer une banque de données ADN "Intervenants".

General information ¶

Authors

N-VA Sophie De Wit, Sarah Smeyers, Goedele Uyttersprot, Kristien Van Vaerenbergh
Open Vld Egbert Lachaert, Carina Van Cauter

Submission date

Oct. 12, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

DNA criminology forensic medicine database judicial inquiry

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA MR PP VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo PS | SP PVDA | PTB

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 ¶

May 4, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Van Hecke, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

The word is to Mrs. Ozen.

Mr. Speaker, this proposal, which creates a DNA database of criminal intervenants, was voted as part of the quick wins bill. In addition to the fact that it was probably not a text of this kind, we had asked for the opinion of the Privacy Protection Commission, which we were unfortunately rejected by the majority. It is true that, at first, the Commission had actually given an opinion on the matter. On the other hand, it was unable to give an opinion on the new amendments introduced by the majority, in particular the one aimed at extending the period for automatic deletion of data from 30 to 50 years This is obviously a huge problem since, in its assessment of proportionality, the Commission had at the time considered that with the 30-year period, the provision was proportionate. Therefore, it is currently difficult to say the same about the amended version. While the retention of data is justified because some people sometimes work for more than 30 years, the period of 50 years is ⁇ long.

For the rest, the debate apparently did not take place with the persons concerned, such as the police officers who will now have to, I recall, compulsoryly provide their DNA to carry out their tasks. It is still nothing! Furthermore, the Privacy Protection Commission already observed at that time, in the original text, that the systematic comparison of all DNA profiles with the stakeholder database was not sufficiently motivated and not adequate. Today, therefore, it is possible to confuse an interviewer in another criminal case as a suspect because his DNA was previously collected through this new database. This provision has the effect, as the Commission explained in its opinion, that intervenants, by virtue of their profession, are at greater risk of being spotted than the rest of the population if they commit a serious offence. It is also nothing!

This implies that quality control is carried out so that the database can properly serve the general interest, i.e. work to discover the truth in criminal matters. We obviously do not oppose the philosophy of this proposal, but it remains that this regression is neither adequate nor justified.

This proposal was voted promptly and, as I said, without a new opinion from the Privacy Protection Commission and without taking the time to consult the persons concerned. That is why my group will abstain from this text.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all know a crime scene from television series, but in reality in criminal cases you also step off on the spot, there must be forensic investigation and we immediately see that a lot of people go on the spot, such as police officers, experts, rescue workers and other staff of the court.

There is, therefore, a very high risk of contamination or at least a very large amount of work in the trace investigation because one must be able to distinguish the fingerprints of all those employees from those that are really concerned in the context of the investigation and criminal investigation. This takes a lot of time and money, so we have submitted a proposal to establish a database for the intervenients, the persons who intervene in an investigation.

This proposal was already submitted in the previous legislature by my colleague Inge Faes in the Senate. There was already a request for an opinion from the Privacy Commission. We have further elaborated that proposal and have responded to the comments of the Privacy Commission. To say that there is no advice, therefore, is little serious. It was there and we met it.

It is an important proposal, a further step in the creation of various databases, such as the DNA database and recently the database of missing persons. This is also a very important database because it can mean time savings and savings, because with this database contamination can be excluded.

I have heard the comments of colleague Özen. After the debate was held, I think it was logical to set the deadline after which those profiles would eventually be deleted to fifty years.

However, I do not understand colleague Özen when she continues to say that police officers and others must be obliged to give DNA. That’s obvious, because if one of them has DNA and the other does not, it makes no sense to set up such a database. It is also a professional condition. There is no problem. More importantly, Mrs. Özen, I refer to the opinion of the Privacy Commission, which explicitly agreed with it. We do what the Privacy Commission requests.

It is an additional good step forward for more efficient forensic investigation. I am very pleased that we have been able to conduct the discussion in the committee and I thank everyone for this exciting discussion. I would like to thank everyone who supported the bill. The result was unanimous, with only one abstinence. I am very pleased with this and thank everyone for it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, DNA analysis is now crucial in most police and judicial investigations. Although this element of evidence is decisive and should never be neglected, targeted and intelligent analyses should nevertheless be carried out as far as possible, given their high cost.

That’s why my group is looking forward to the creation of this DNA database taking the profiles of professionals who can be brought to intervene on the crime scene. This will allow, when traces are found, to automatically compare the traces with the profiles of people who have worked on the site, without having to make new samples each time. Therefore, it is not only an economy that will be achieved, but it will also be an important time savings for the investigation.

Indeed, the Privacy Protection Commission was not heard when this proposal was examined in a committee. As we received a previous opinion, we did not find it useful to conduct a new hearing and to request a new opinion since the texts were on the same subject. Therefore, for efficiency and pragmatism reasons, we did not request a new opinion from the Privacy Protection Commission.

In any case, important safeguards are provided in respect of the privacy of the persons who will appear in this database. However, it seems important, Mr. Minister, as you have committed to it, to involve professionals in the sector in the consultation in order to reassure them that unfounded fears do not damage the subject of this proposal.

I would like to emphasize that this proposal is part of the continuity of the law of 22 March 1999 on identification by DNA analysis in criminal matters, which already provided for the creation of this database "Intervenants". The implementation of this database will therefore be able to intervene as quickly as possible, depending on the technical contingencies.

I would also like to welcome the work of the authors of the proposal, who submitted the text to the Senate during the previous legislature and who had to continuously rework it in order to lead to a text that achieved almost unanimous, since, as Ms. De Wit specified, it was voted unanimously minus one abstinence in the Justice Committee.