Proposition 55K0489

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 20 juillet 1990 relative à la détention préventive en ce qui concerne l'arrestation immédiate.

General information ¶

Authors

N-VA Christoph D'Haese, Sophie De Wit, Kristien Van Vaerenbergh

Submission date

Oct. 1, 2019

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

prisoner criminal procedure criminal law penalty carrying out of sentence

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

PVDA | PTB

Party dissidents ¶

• Khalil Aouasti (PS | SP) 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. 21, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur is Mr Crombez.

Mr. Speaker, I refer largely to the report, but given the importance of the proposal, I would like to add a few points.

The relevant article shall be supplemented by the words "or that he would commit new crimes or misconduct". If the proposal is approved, recidive will therefore count for the determination of the provisional detention.

The Justice Committee discussed a number of proposals and amendments from various parties. In particular, it was asked whether it would be desirable that the provisional detention would be automatically applied. It was noted that its non-automation – I parafrase – would involve a positive motion of confidence in the judiciary.

The discussion should ⁇ also be situated in the context of the case-Julie Van Espen. That explains why, according to some groups, the expansion is an improvement. A number of misstatements, such as in the case-Julie Van Espen, could thus be avoided. Several groups argued that the judge who had to assess the offender’s flight behavior in that case did not have the full information about the offender. Despite today’s improvements, the judges in such an important decision must have the full file. This should be a priority.

After the discussion, twelve members voted for, two members abstained. The proposals of some colleagues disappear.

Mr. White has the word in the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, when an investigative judge or a council chamber in an ongoing judicial investigation wants to deprive a suspect of his or her liberty, he has today different criteria for this: flight risk, risk of recurrence, risk of collusion or public safety. However, if a judge, in essence, convicts a person to a severe prison sentence and wants the convicted person to be immediately detained for this purpose, he has only one criterion, namely the danger of flight. The risk of recurrence is not taken into account. This means that a multiplier who is not flight hazardous and who, despite repeated facts, always offers himself cleanly cannot be detained, but remains free in anticipation of a treatment in appeal or receipt of his imprisonment certificate. Recent records in Leuven and Antwerp have shown that the consequences can be terrible.

This proposal would like to do something about it. With this proposal, we introduce an additional criterion, namely that of the risk of recurrence, so that multipliers, even though they are not flight hazard, can now also be detained. What a suspect can do, must be for a convict. We thus give the criminal judge more opportunities to move to immediate detention and also better protect society in this way.

We do not introduce a new concept. We use the same words, as they also apply to the council. The judge shall retain the possibility of control. He will judge. Of course, the judge will have to have the necessary information. He will have to lie ahead, but if he goes ahead, he can finally do something about it. He cannot do that today. With this proposal, he will finally be able to do something about it, even if there is no flight danger.

When someone appears before the court, one often knows that several facts have already been committed, even though he has not yet been convicted for the new facts, because that information is often linked in the file. The Public Prosecutor may provide this information. Today, the court can do nothing with that information, as long as the person concerned simply offers himself correctly or indicates himself. This could be done from today. This is very important. It is a very small change that can have big consequences.

We have had a very good debate on this in the Justice Committee, as it should be. Amendments were submitted and comments were made. These were discussed, including the amendment that the PS submits again today. There was also a second reading. This is a unicum – I have been in this hemisphere for a few years – because it is the first time that a second reading was requested, in which the legislative technical services had no comment. It must be that it is okay. It is also a simple change. We use the same words.

This proposal received very broad support in the committee, for which I would like to thank my colleagues very much. I hope that I will soon be able to get that support for this proposal, with which we can give many victims, families but also the judges, an additional backstop in the fight against violence and crime. That is what we do here. We give the judge an additional tool. We want to make society a little safer.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I think that Mrs. De Wit has already stated why the present proposal is a good proposal and why it is necessary to provide this additional possibility for judges making judgments in first instance.

I will not repeat all the arguments. We had made a similar proposal in the committee, based on the same arguments. I think there were many similar ideas. There was also a request from the legal profession to provide this additional possibility. I think many judges will be pleased to have this opportunity. I think this is a step forward.

It is also important that it is not automatic. There were also proposals in that sense. It is important that the judge can still make the case by case, based on the elements of the file. I think that is the big challenge. The law is what it is: this possibility exists, but it will only be well applied if the magistrate who must apply this provision also has all the interesting, essential information to come to a good judgment. If the file does not contain sufficient information on antecedents and so on, the judge will find it difficult, despite the legal possibilities, to use it.

My call to the government, to the executive and to the judiciary is to ensure that the files are as complete as possible, so that every judge with knowledge of the case and case-by-case can deliver a judgment. We will therefore support this text with great conviction.

Mr. Speaker, also the Flemish Belang is pleased that there is finally an extension of that law, for which thank you, colleague De Wit. Previously, there was only immediate arrest if there was a flight danger, but now we see that recurrence comes with it. The reason for this was, of course, the murder of Julie Van Espen in Antwerp last spring. The perpetrator had previously been convicted of raping his ex-girlfriend, but because he appealed, he remained on his feet.

There has been another, more recent dossier in the press, namely of criminal Paul Bloemen. He was sentenced on May 24 to 15 months in prison for the murder of his girlfriend. After the murder, in August, he was held in custody for fourteen months, but was later temporarily released by the council chamber with a single belt. He was therefore able to attend his process as a free man. After his conviction, the public prosecutor asked the judge to immediately arrest Flowers and send them to prison, but the judge, unfortunately, did not do so, because judges today according to the law can only rely on the danger of flight. Flowers had always adhered to the conditions and always came to his process, so he did not qualify. He was sent home and awaiting a calling letter from the prison he was allowed to stay there. At the end of August, he cut his ankle band and disappeared. So far, two stories that have reached the newspaper. There will probably be many others.

To put an end to all these horror stories, it is crucial that this bill be adopted today. We agree to a compromise. It is not exactly what we want it to be, but it is already something. We have been advocating for a stricter follow-up policy for years. Lifetime is lifetime, for example. We are also working on that.

We see that the judge with the text that precludes may decide to proceed to immediate arrest. We would rather have seen a text that says that the judge in recidive automatically orders immediate arrest on demand of the prosecutor’s office. The fact that the judge will only be given the possibility to order immediate arrest is not far enough for us. It is about perpetrators who have already been convicted. It is important that when serious acts are committed, society immediately receives the necessary protection.

I hear colleague Van Hecke say that it is important that the judge decides. But the judge still has enough opportunities to return to the judgment. For us, it should be an automation.

Therefore, an amendment was submitted by our group in the Committee on Justice. This amendment is a literal takeover of the Open Vld bill, but in the committee that party has abstained from it. She did not have the courage to support her own proposal. Some even left the room. Understand who can understand.

The Vlaams Belang wants to be constructive. That’s why we voted this afternoon. We will approve this bill. This is definitely a step in the right direction.

I would have had to give the floor to Ms. Zanchetta first. I apologize for not following the order.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, we all remember Julie Van Espen, this young woman murdered last spring in Antwerp. We all remember the misunderstanding and astonishment that broke out when we learned that his alleged murderer was on conditional release, while he had been sentenced to four years in prison for rape.

Stupefaction and misunderstanding because how to explain to Julie Van Espen’s family and relatives that the alleged murderer of their daughter, their friend was on conditional release? How can it be explained that it is possible to remain on conditional freedom while there is a risk of recurrence? The court of Antwerp had not found it useful to order the immediate arrest of the alleged murderer, despite the prosecution of the public prosecutor. The suspect had appealed and awaited his second trial with free hands.

This drama highlighted that today, only the risk of escape is examined by the judge who evaluates the necessity of an immediate arrest. The correctional court of Antwerp had explained to understand the consternation but justified itself as follows: “Article 33, § 2 of the provisional detention law allows immediate arrest only when there is a doubt about the intention of the person concerned to evade the execution of his sentence. This is a legal criterion that the court must respect. The risk of recurrence, the seriousness of the facts, the severity of the sentence, etc., shall not constitute a legal basis legitimating an immediate arrest.”

Stupefaction and misunderstanding of saying that dangerousness, the risk of recurrence do not constitute legal grounds justifying immediate arrest.

This poses even more question if we think of the situations of violence against women and the too many feminicides that reveal tortureers to the past of recidivist.

But, beyond the emotion that surrounds us when we are spectators of crimes like these, we must, dear colleagues, remember the fundamental principles of our rule of law.

I am especially concerned with the presumption of innocence. Indeed, in the name of respect for the presumption of innocence, immediate arrest must remain the exception for the accused or accused who appear free. Does this mean that there should be no exceptions? No, of course ! In certain circumstances, in the event of a danger to public security, exceptions should be provided.

Exceptions already exist today. This is ⁇ the case when there is a risk that the accused or the accused attempts to escape the execution of the sentence. But for my group, we can go further. In addition to the risk of escaping the execution of the sentence, we believe that this possibility should also be provided in case of recurrence.

The proposal we are examining this afternoon, and we support, extends the possibility of immediate arrest to the risk of recurrence. We support this extension, but we had submitted an amendment that clarified our point of view and took into account sexual crimes committed against minors, rape in general, and violence against women. Sexual offences committed against a minor victim are such a trauma for the victim, his family and for society as a whole that there can be no question of taking the risk of other acts being committed. We therefore provide that the judge who considers that the accused or accused person poses a danger to public security may make his immediate arrest.

In 2014, ⁇ 40,000 complaints for acts of violence between partners were filed with the police and ⁇ 3,000 complaints for acts of rape. Not to mention the black figure. A study by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights on violence against women estimates that 78% of victims in Belgium have not ⁇ to the police or any other body the most severe act of violence committed against them by a partner. According to the Security Monitor, only 7.2 percent of sexual offenses are ⁇ .

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Zanchetta, I would like to interrupt you briefly.

You notice that there is a presumption of innocence. Of course, an appeal is possible, but at that point the person concerned is already convicted. That is one aspect. One is slightly closer to a final conviction than when one appears before the council chamber. However, you are opposing yourself.

I will wait for the translation.

I do not want to distort your argument too sharply, but you just mentioned that there is a presumption of innocence, that the person concerned has not yet been definitively convicted and appeal is still possible. However, one has already been convicted and one is already one step further than when one appears before the council chamber or before the investigative judge.

You advise that immediate detention should be limited to as few cases as possible and that it should only take place when it is really necessary.

I re-read your amendment. We had the same debate in the committee. However, you re-take the amendment and submit it again. Therefore, it is important to give the following.

Your amendment expressly states that you want another criterion, namely the necessity for the sake of public safety. However, that criterion is much broader and much broader than the risk of recurrence and the risk of flight combined. It is a container concept.

This is not in accordance with what you stated earlier. Or you judge that immediate detention should be reduced to a minimum. In this regard, our solution to the risk of recurrence and flight offers a lot of possibilities to the court, which, however, are concise and very well defined. However, the proposal that you take today and repeat, in this case the necessity for the sake of public safety, is much broader. It is also completely contrary to your previous claim that that detention should be reduced to a minimum.

I would like to emphasize this contradiction for all clarity. She is also the reason why in any way our group has not agreed with your amendment and will, of course, not approve it later. After all, we believe that this opens up a mega-size container concept, which cannot be the intention.

We actually had this debate in the Justice Committee on the two criteria, namely, on the one hand, the fact of committing a new crime or crime and, on the other hand, the amendment we have submitted on the absolute necessity for public security. We then considered and still consider that the notion of absolute necessity for public security is more respectful of the notion of presumption of innocence than yours.

Why Why ? For the right and simple reason that you take back a notion that is contained in the Preventive Detention Act of 1990 and that applies to the investigation phase in which the magistrate does not have to judge facts whether they are established or not. You transfer it to another phase of the criminal trial which is the substantive phase where a magistrate who has made a ruling on facts, not yet definitive (because the capacity to oppose or appeal still exists) will have to make a ruling, while the facts are not finally judged, on whether the person will commit new crimes or offences.

In other words, it prejudices a question that it has resolved and which is not yet definitive. The law of 1990 opens the right on this question to an appeal in cassation where the question of the presumption of innocence and where that question will be debated at a purely legal level. We consider that there is a defect, a breach on this fundamental principle that is the presumption of innocence, since the magistrate has to decide on a question on which, in the essence, it is not legitimate for him to decide.

Let me return to the violence against women.

We no longer count the number of stories of women who say they have appeared several times at the police station before seeing their second complaint finally recorded, with, often, a gradation in the facts that makes cold in the back.

However, intimate partner violence and sexual violence have serious, medium and long-term consequences on women’s physical, mental, sexual and even reproductive health, but it is also their children, their families and society that suffer the consequences. It is time to make it a political priority and to say that for us these facts are not mere various facts but facts of such gravity that they must entail heavy consequences for those who commit them.

We wished that these facts could also be taken into account to determine the existence of a danger to public security that might require immediate arrest. Our proposal did not receive the approval of the committee, but the discussions in the committee led us to submit a new amendment that we have, as you have seen, also re-submitted, dear colleagues.

What is its nature? What is its objective? We would prefer to retain the criterion of absolute necessity for public security rather than the general notion of recurrence. In our view, the concept of absolute necessity for public security allows the person to be detained in the context of immediate arrest, without having to take a decision on matters that may infringe on the presumption of innocence.

This amendment, which my colleague Khalil Aouasti defended in the committee, proposes, on the one hand, to incorporate new offences into the reduced sentence threshold of one year, namely essentially sexual offences committed against minors, rape, acts of terrorism, voluntary homicides not qualified as murders, voluntary bodily injury and harassment. These new offences are integrated in order to better combat them and ensure that additional means are available for victims of these types of offences and crimes, especially since, in the vast majority of situations, victims are women.

On the other hand, this amendment proposes that the criterion of withdrawal cannot be considered as the sole determining criterion for immediate arrest. A second criterion, existing in the Preventive Detention Act of 1990, is incorporated, by analogy to the arrest warrant that leads to preventive detention. This is the criterion of absolute necessity for public security.

The criterion relating to absolute necessity for public safety shall include, in particular, the intrinsic dangerousness of the alleged or suspected perpetrator of the facts, the number of complaints against the alleged or suspected perpetrator of the facts, one or more previous convictions for facts of the same nature.

I ask you to reconsider your position on our amendment. This reinforces your text. My group supports this proposal. However, my colleague Aouasti will abstain because the text presents some legal fragility.

Since the beginning of the year, 21 women have died in Belgium, simply because they were women. One of them was called Julie. Julie was a 23-year-old student from Antwerp. His death shook us all, this was recalled. Today, the legislative initiative that is on our table is motivated by this tragedy. The PTB wishes to show its respect for this approach.

There was a drama in this case. It is obvious that the assassin of Julie Van Espen should not have been free. This must really be taken seriously. How is it possible that Julie’s murderer, with such a file, was released during the investigation? How can we avoid this in the future? These questions are completely legitimate and justified.

We applauded the decision of the Higher Council of Justice to open a special investigation into this case to assess the involvement of the judicial system. As far as I know, his conclusions have not yet been published.

We have read and reviewed this bill several times. We took the time to contact several lawyers specializing in the matter and I must say that I am surprised because they tell me that duplicating a procedure that already exists in front of the Board of Trustees will not solve the problem.

The Order of the French and German-speaking bars told me that he wrote to the chairman of the Justice Commission to request that a real debate be opened on this preventive detention. The debates are totally inadequate today, especially when it is observed that in Belgium, 42% of detainees are currently in preventive detention. This email has never been brought to our attention and it seems to me very regrettable.

These experts also emphasize that the proposal presented here may have many negative side effects: the increase in unrealisable incarcerations and judicial errors. All agree that the question of the dangerousness of the accused before the council chamber must be addressed in a much deeper way, in the interest of the victims. Where things went wrong, it was, among other things, during the inquiry and during the debate in front of the Board Chamber. Will we solve this problem by introducing a new criterion for immediate arrest during a hearing on the subject matter? In the light of the legal advice provided by practitioners, we fear that this is a false solution. It might be useful to add the criterion of recurrence but not the general way proposed in the text today.

In conclusion, maybe something escapes me but I must admit that the proposed solution does not have the merit of convincing me. I would like to be able to say that no other family will have to know the calvary of the Van Espen family. But with this text, are we not once again minimizing the problem of violence against women? I ask myself. Isn’t the death of Julie and all those women who died this year primarily due to the lack of seriousness in the consideration by justice and police of these violence? Is the creation of a double procedure not an acknowledgment of the complete failure of policies to combat violence against women? Can we say that we are trying by all means to fulfill our obligations in this matter in the best possible way?

In the Justice Committee, I was answered that the proposal had nothing to do with this issue and that this issue was not on the agenda. The development of the proposal, however, mentions the murder of a young woman in Antwerp last spring. I supported an amendment aimed at applying this proposal only to moral acts, because I think that is exactly what it is about. Unfortunately, this was rejected. I would have liked this true subject not to be removed; we should not turn away from the facts.

Every day, women speak on this issue to ask for concrete political responses to the violence that is being inflicted on them. They want justice to take these violence seriously and, above all, they remind the urgency in the face of the death of dozens of innocent people.

We need to listen to them. Our country needs an ambitious and leading-edge policy to combat violence against women, with a strong vision and measures. That is why the PTB will, of course, be present at the demonstration next Sunday. It is necessary that the entire chain of criminal justice can provide an appropriate response to this real calvary. Thank you for listening to me.

Mr. Speaker, the MR will support this bill that gives an additional tool to the judge of substance, in order to avoid a release during the time limits for appeal, when extremely serious facts have been committed – as unfortunately sometimes happens under certain circumstances.

The text has badges to avoid recourse to immediate arrest at all-va. The first aspect that should be highlighted is the absence of automation. Then, the judge who would decide an immediate arrest must justify his decision. A balance is thus established between, on the one hand, the rights of the accused and the presumption of innocence until a final judgment has been issued and, on the other hand, the protection of society.

The MR welcomes the broad consensus that was gathered after the discussions in the Justice Committee. Moreover, this text joins an idea that had been submitted by our group during the 51st Legislature. It is true that at the time the scope of the text was more restricted, as we envisaged an immediate automatic arrest in the case of sexual offences against a minor under the age of 16 – that is, a category of extremely vulnerable people. The one we vote today has a wider criminal spectrum. The judge will make his decision based on the elements of the case that will be submitted to him. The proposal will be supported by Mr.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, as repeatedly stated here, the law currently gives the judge only the possibility to impose immediate detention in case of conviction to a prison sentence, provided that he demonstrates that there is a fear that the convicted person will escape the execution of the sentence, in other words, that there is a danger of flight.

This seems to provide insufficient guarantees against the possibility that a person, pending his appeal, still commits new criminal offences.

This was shown once again in the case of Julie Van Espen, where the suspects were convicted years before for various facts, such as theft and healing, but also for rape. At the time of the facts he was a free man, since he was only convicted in first instance for a second act of rape and was not placed under immediate detention until the hearing of his case in appeal. The Prosecutor’s Office had requested this immediate arrest, but the judge had not intervened because there would be no chance that the person concerned would evade the execution of his sentence. In the meantime, we know that this is not the only place where it failed. The incompleteness of the file also played a role.

After this case, and also before, unfortunately, similar cases took the press, not only in moral facts.

I would like to emphasize that this is ⁇ not a question of stealth policy. After all, the succession of cases shows that there is something lacking in the law as it exists today.

Our party was ⁇ not insensitive to this issue. Therefore, we have supported the bills presented here today and we have also submitted a bill.

We can ⁇ agree with the purpose of these bills. We also considered this track, but ultimately chose to go a step further with our proposal. We chose, as also explained in the committee, to reverse the current logic. Where the law today gives the magistrates the possibility to impose immediate detention, we wanted to make it an automation, with yet the possibility for the magistrates to deviate from it, provided that there is a reason.

We retained the fact that the arrest should be promoted by the Prosecutor’s Office, which must continue to fulfill an important filter role. As Ms. De Wit just emphasized, and that is important, there is already a conviction at the time of imposing the immediate arrest. Establishing this automation could prevent someone from committing new facts in anticipation of his appeal. We believe that this method provides a better guarantee than if the criteria to be assessed by the magistrates need to be supplemented by additional factors. By the way, as cited in the committee by several speakers, it is very difficult to decide in concrete cases whether or not someone is flight hazard at that time. As practice has shown, it is not because a person appears on his trial every time and complies with his conditions that he cannot run away when he hears his final sentence in first instance.

I would therefore like to emphasize that in our own proposal we have indeed respected the freedom of decision and the autonomy of magistrates. It was decided that the prosecutor should request immediate arrest. The magistrates of the Prosecutor’s Office remained free to act according to honour and conscience. In addition, the seated magistrates could still refuse, provided that there is a reason. Therefore, the judicial test remained in our proposal.

In the committee there was no majority for our proposal. Therefore, we have chosen to support the slightly less extensive option, which Ms. De Wit and her group had submitted, and to disconnect our bill.

The present proposal is a good proposal. We fully support that the risk of recurrence is additionally registered in the law to prevent such cases from occurring in the future. Although we cannot, unfortunately, exclude everything, hopefully the bill can make such horrible facts happen much less.

We therefore support the bill submitted by the N-VA group.

Mr. Speaker, I will be ⁇ brief.

The SP will support this proposal with conviction. I will not repeat the arguments that are already in the very good report. However, I would like to point out, before the Chamber, another important element that I have already emphasized as a rapporteur and that has also been cited by Mr Van Hecke.

Whether it is a possible flight hazard or a possible recidive, in the case-Julie Van Espen, which is often cited, we have to find that the judge did not have the complete information of the perpetrator at the time when the judge was to make a decision. During the hearings in the Justice Committee, we have heard several times that the files, due to the lack of resources in Justice, are not or are difficult to access. That is the only point in the discussion that I would like to repeat, because it seems to me elementary.

We support the current proposal because it represents a step forward and will reduce a number of problems. However, I would also like to make it clear to the semisecond that part of the problem with the present proposal has not yet been solved, namely the functioning of the Judiciary. We must ensure that the information and documentation is complete at least for the judges.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen, our group supports this bill because of its purpose. The current law, in that it allows immediate arrest only in case of risk of escape, has shown its limits. The explanation of the reasons for the bill, of course, cites the tragic case of Julie Van Espen, but the limits of the law concern any other similar case. We are therefore not within the framework of an emotional legislation, of which my party has always taken care to distance itself.

The limits of the current law apply to every case in which the accused would ⁇ not risk escaping the execution of his sentence but which, due to his judicial history, in particular in the case of previous conviction for acts of violence or morals, would pose a real danger to our security. This impossibility of immediate arrest in such cases required legislative change for both current victims and potential victims.

The bill thus proposes to add the risk of recurrence to the criteria allowing the criminal judge to proceed with immediate arrest. It is therefore this notion that has been retained in the Justice Committee in that it is already included in Article 16 of the Preventive Detention Act but also in that the risk of recurrence includes the idea that public security is at stake.

My group would, however, have preferred that the notion of absolute necessity for public security be retained because it is more respectful of the presumption of innocence. The notion of recurrence refers, in fact, to the risk of committing new crimes or offences and therefore implies that punishable facts, recognised in court, have already been committed, which can normally not be induced when a person is presumed innocent and is present before the judge of substance.

For this reason I co-signed the amendment of my socialist colleagues, which also provides for the inclusion of new offences allowing this immediate arrest, in this case sexual offences committed against minors, rape, harassment, voluntary homicide, acts of terrorism. However, we will support this bill because of its purpose.

I still have to clarify that, besides this, it will be necessary to ensure that the criminal judge can dispose of all the information that will be necessary to pronounce this measure. It will definitely be the Minister of Justice, current as well as future, to ensure that.

Mr. Speaker, of course CD&V will also approve the present bill.

Just then I heard in some speeches that by this we exclude any risk, but by this we make the truth violent. We must also be honest in this. Punishment will never be risk-free. There has been a few references to ⁇ the heaviest and most dramatic case we have known this year, but that was a collusion. It concerned not only a problem of not applying the immediate detention, but also the session of the Court of Appeal and its postponement. A lot of things have come together there. This case is specifically in this regard.

The submitters of the proposal will agree that we hereby repeat a condition that has actually already been established for a part with regard to the provisional detention and has often already been assessed there. However, the proposal provides added value and opportunities. It is also about the future and not about judgments from the past, as I just heard. We approved the proposal, also because it is not considered an automation. Immediate detention is a very serious measure. We also take risks of unworkable detention. There must always be a judicial test, and for us, it should remain the same.