BELGIUM[1]
IHF FOCUS:
anti-terrorism measures; freedom of expression; torture and ill-treatment;
prisons and detention facilities; freedom of religion; national and ethnic
minorities; international humanitarian law; intolerance, xenophobia and racial
discrimination; asylum seekers and immigrants; trafficking in human beings.
The main human rights concerns in Belgium in 2003 were related to
ill-treatment, the prison system, xenophobia and racial discrimination, and the
rights of asylum seekers and immigrants.
In May, the UN Committee against Torture (CAT) examined Belgium's
initial report on its implementation of the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The CAT expressed
concern, among other things, about cases of use of excessive
force during demonstrations and the expulsion of foreigners; about the
possibility of ordering the isolation of juvenile delinquents; and the
ineffective functioning of administrative commissions and organs of internal
control of prisons.
CAT
recommended respect for the independence of the Belgian jurisdiction from
executive power concerning the exercise of universal competence on the matter
of grave violations of international humanitarian law. In July, amidst strong
criticism from civil groups and human rights organizations, the government
agreed to amend the universal jurisdiction law, known as “anti-atrocity law,”
to cover only cases when Belgian interests were directly involved.
In June, the European Commission on Racism and
Intolerance (ECRI) released its third periodic report on Belgium expressing
concern over the continuing presence of racist and xenophobic discourse in
politics in the country and the increasing success of parties that resort to
racist or xenophobic propaganda. The court proceedings against three non-profit
associations linked to the extreme right Vlaams Blok moved on to a new stage
after the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals of Gent.
In
December, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) released
its report on “Dutch-speakers’ right to health care in Brussels and the
surrounding municipalities” in their own language.
Anti-Terrorism Measures
The fight against terrorism in general and a framework decision of the
Council of the European Union in particular, initiated a process of adopting a
bill on terrorist offences and terrorist groups. On 13 November, the Chamber of
Representatives approved the draft text without any in-depth discussions on its
possible ramifications. The bill was then submitted to the Senate’s Justice
Committee for analysis and opinion.[2]
Lawyers and
civil groups questioned the purpose of adopting a separate law since the Penal
Code contained a sufficient number of provisions related to terrorist offences.
The League for Human Rights expressed concern that the definition of terrorist
offences as having the objective to “destabilize the fundamental economic and
social structures of a country or an international organization” might lead to
criminalization of some social movements.[3]
Preventive detention was envisaged for all terrorist offences.
On 6 January,
a bill was adopted to legalize several special tools for investigation and
inquiry. Four categories were introduced, observation, infiltration, use of informers
and criminal analysis. These included interception of telephone conversations
and the search of houses in the absence of a criminal offence. Three
organizations—the French and Dutch branches of the League for Human Rights as
well as the Syndicate of Lawyers for Democracy—criticized the law and submitted
a demand to the Arbitrage Court to nullify it.
Freedom of Expression
While the rights of freedom of speech and of the press were generally
respected, there was mounting concern over violation of journalists’ right to
confidentiality of their sources.
In January,
the PACE released the first report by the general rapporteur on the media.”[5] In
the analysis on Belgium, the report drew attention to two cases of violation of
journalists’ rights to protect their sources. The first was the case of José
Masschelin, a reporter for the daily Het Laatste Nieuws who was jailed
on 14 March 2002 for possession of a confidential file concerning paedophilia.
The second was the case of two reporters, Douglas de Coninck and Marc
Vendermeir, from the daily De Morgen who on 29 May 2002 were ordered to
pay €25 for every hour they continued to refuse to reveal their sources for an
article on the Belgian State Railways.
In June,
senator Bourgeois submitted to the Chamber of Representatives a bill related to
the protection of journalists’ sources of information reaffirming that this was
an important component of freedom of expression.[6]
Torture, Ill-Treatment and Police Misconduct
In May, the CAT issued its conclusions and recommendations on the
initial report of Belgium submitted in August 2001, two years after the country
had ratified the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and
Degrading Treatment or Punishment.[7] The
CAT expressed concern, among other things, about cases involving use of
excessive force during demonstrations or the expulsion of foreigners, at the
possibility of ordering the isolation of juvenile delinquents aged 12 and over
for up to 17 days, and at the ineffective functioning of administrative
commissions and organs of internal control of prisons. It recommended that
Belgian authorities ensure that all officials committing acts of ill-treatment
be liable to criminal charges, proceed with allegations of excessive use of
force by public officials, and align their conduct with the convention
guidelines on the use of force in dealing with public demonstrations and
expulsions of foreigners.
·
On 10
February, the Brussels Council Chamber decided to transfer back to the
Correctional Tribunal of Brussels a case of
five former police officers for their involvement in the fatal
repatriation of Semira Adamu, a 20-year old Nigerian, on 22 September 1998. Before the take-off of
the plane, the police officers had employed the so-called ”cushion technique,”
which was a restraining method authorized by the Ministry of Interior at the
time but subsequently banned. On
12 December, four police officers were convicted. The escorting police officers
received a suspended sentence of one-year and their superior a suspended
14-month imprisonment. The fifth police officer, who was in charge of contacts
with passengers, was acquitted.
·
On 30
June, after ten years of court proceedings, the 14th Chamber of the
Brussels Court of Appeal convicted a police officer for beating and insulting a
person of Tunisian origin. On 8 July 1993. He had been sentenced to eight
months imprisonment with a suspension of five years and €5,000 of damages to be
paid to the victim. The League for Human Rights and the Movement against
Racism, Anti-Semitism and Xenophobia, who acted as civil parties on the side of
the victim, asked for one euro as a symbolic payment.
Belgium’s Permanent Commission for Control of Police Services (Comité P), established by law in 1991 as
an external monitoring institution, was entrusted with the task of overseeing
the functioning of police and law enforcement structures. As part of the
general reform of the police, each police unit was required to have an
investigation mechanism to examine allegations of misbehaviour on the part of
the police officers. Such mechanisms, however, were not in place in all units.
Prisons and Detention Facilities
The
conclusions and observations of the CAT dealt at length with Belgium’s prison
system and the rights of persons in custody. Failures were mainly related to
the lack of legislation sufficient to ensure the rights of persons subject to
judicial or administrative arrest to have access to a lawyer immediately upon
arrest and to be clearly informed of their rights. Concern was expressed with
regard to access to health care, the lack of qualified personnel, the
insufficient training of supervising staff, and the lack of recourse mechanisms
against disciplinary sanctions and malfunctioning of the prison monitoring
system.[8]
The report
recommended the improvement of the prison law, in particular to define the
judicial status of detainees and to clarify the prison disciplinary regime, and
to guarantee the right of prisoners to file complaints before an independent
and rapidly accessible body.
During the
year, the Chamber of Representatives adopted a bill on principles concerning
the administration of the prison system and the judicial status of detainees.[9] The
adoption was preceded by several years of work on the subject, launched with
the creation of a legal commission under the chairmanship of Lieven Dupont in
1997, with the task of elaborating on the principles of the legislative reform.
The commission report was finalized in February 2000 and was submitted to the
parliament in 2001. The adopted bill in 2003 underlined as a priority the need
to examine the conclusions of the commission and prepare for legislative
changes.
The Ministry
of Justice established another commission, known as the Holsters Commission,
which was entrusted with a study on punishments with a special focus on
alternative sanctions. On 9 May, the commission submitted its report, which is
expected to serve as a basis for a bill. On 11 March, the justice committee of
the Chamber of Representatives had a special plenary sitting on the law on
detention quotas, submitted to the parliament on 22 November 2002.
Overcrowding
was a chronic failure of the prison system. As of 23 April, 8,086 places were
available for a total of 9,209 prisoners. The number of people in custody was
on the increase and there were many debates across the political spectrum on
extending the scope of punishments alternative to imprisonment as well as the
possibility of provisional release of detainees.
Freedom of Religion
State and Religion
The
relationship between the state and religions in Belgium was historically rooted
in the principle of recognition and non-recognition of religions. However,
recognition criteria were never enshrined in the Constitution, in decrees or in
laws. Six religions (Catholicism, Protestantism, Anglicanism, Judaism, Islam
and Orthodoxy) and secular humanism (laïcité) were recognized by the
state. They enjoyed facilities and advantages that were denied to all other
religious groups.
The
state financed only recognized religions. State subsidies were provided by all
taxpayers, including those who professed a non-recognized religion or who did
not adhere to any religion or belief system. This system was not equitable in
so far as taxpayers were unable to prohibit the state from using their income
tax to finance religions and secular humanism that were openly opposed to
non-recognized minority religions.
On
6 February, the Executive of the Muslims in Belgium, a representative body elected in December 1998,
tendered its resignation following a report submitted to the Council of
Ministers on 6 December 2002, which proposed, among other things, the
replacement of a some of the members of the Executive of the Muslims in
Belgium. Earlier in 2002, several elected candidates were thought to have
connections with fundamentalist circles
and were rejected by the Ministry of Justice after the Intelligence Service had
carried out a controversial screening.
In the aftermath of various
crises inside the Executive of the Muslims as well as between the Executive,
its General Assembly and the Belgian state, a new royal decree recognizing the
members of the new Executive of the Muslims of Belgium was signed on 18 July
and published on 25 July in the official gazette.[10] The
mandate of the new Executive started on 1 May 2003 and would come to an end on
31 May 2004.
The question
of wearing headscarves (hijabs) at
educational establishments gained momentum in the wake of the publicized ban at
Athénée Royal of Brussels 2 in Laeken. In June, the school decided to ban, as
of the school year 2003, the wearing of all head-coverings and dozens of
registrations were refused.
On the basis of article 9 of
the ECHR, the government of the French Community handed over all responsibility to the schools
under its authority. The proportion of French-speaking schools in Brussels
refusing to enroll Muslim students wearing headscarves rose to 84% of all
public and Catholic schools, according to statistics published by the
sociologist Mina Bouselmati in her book Le voile contre l’intégrisme
(“The Veil against Fundamentalism”). She
estimated that a third of the students in Brussels schools were Muslim
and 2% of them wore a head covering. According to the educational authorities,
the refusal to enrol young Muslim girls wearing a headscarf reached 87% in those
public schools under the authority of the City of Brussels, 88% in Catholic
schools, whilst less than half (41%) were refused in the French Community
schools.[11]
Following the debates in
France and Germany on the issue, two Belgian senators submitted on their own
initiative a draft resolution inviting the federal and federated authorities of
the country to adopt new legislative acts banning the wearing of religious
insignia in public places, including public hospitals.
Minority Religions
The
state had in place mechanisms and agencies—Center for Information and Advice on
Harmful Sectarian Organizations (Sect Observatory) and Inter-Ministerial
Coordination Agency for the Fight against Harmful Sectarian Organizations—to
identify so-called “harmful cults,” warn the public and fight against them.
The recruitment method of members to the Sect Observatory far from
guaranteed their impartiality. Indeed, half of the members were nominated by
the Council of Ministers for approval by the House of Representatives, while
the other half was directly appointed by the House of Representatives.
Representatives of political parties, the Catholic Church, various anti-sect
movements and ideologies were to be found among the members. Its independence
was also scarcely guaranteed as it was under the authority of and financed by
the Ministry of Justice.[12]
In September, the Sect Observatory issued its second
biennial report.[13] It did not take any
specific steps to clear the 189 movements suspected by the Parliamentary Commission
on Sects of being sectarian and harmful, except the Baha’is and the Mormons. It
targeted not only new religious movements but also groups working in the field
of psychological and physical well-being.[14] However, according to the report, there were no harmful
Islamic sectarian organizations in Belgium. The public information service on
harmful sectarian organizations was quite opaque as neither the targeted
movements nor researchers had access to the contents of the data circulated by
mail and by email on the basis of enquiries. The budget of the Sect Observatory
was not mentioned anywhere in its report. It must also be stressed that the
work of the Inter-Ministerial Agency for the Coordination of the Fight against
Sects was also quite opaque as it did not have to release a public report about
its activities.
The mandate of the Board of Observatory, which came to
an end on 30 April just before the federal elections, was prolonged until 31
October. However, by 31 December, no new board had been appointed yet and
vacancies had not been filled for years.
The number of new religious
movements involved in judicial proceedings remained extremely limited. Three
cases had been pending for several years: the spiritual leader of Spiritual
Human Yoga and his secretary (since 1999), the leader of the Buddhist group OKC
and his secretary (since 1997), and the Church of Scientology (since 2000).
National and Ethnic Minorities
Belgium
signed the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on National Minorities in
2001. However, the convention was not ratified due to the fact that the
federated entities were not in a position to agree on the concept of “national
minority.”
Belgium
as a federal state comprises three communities, three regions and four
linguistic regions (three monolingual and one bilingual). The 1962-1963
language laws have fixed the language boundaries, which were still valid as of
the end of 2003. The principle of territoriality was thereby introduced,
stipulating that in monolingual regions the use of the language of the region
was compulsory for all public administrative acts. The same laws provided for
linguistic facilities for the inhabitants of 27 communes contiguous to a
different linguistic region, who had the right to request that, in their dealings
with the authorities, language other than that of the region in which the
communes were located should be used. Six of the 27 communes with facilities
lie on Flemish territory in the Brussels periphery and have a large share,
sometimes a majority, of French-speaking inhabitants. Though the official
language in these communes is Dutch, these inhabitants have the right to
request that French be used in their dealing with the public authorities.
Brussels is officially a bilingual city, with a majority of French-speaking
inhabitants. Resolution 1301 (2002) of the PACE reiterated that Belgium was one
of the countries with “significant minorities who need to be protected and
whose rights are not officially recognized.”[15]
The assembly spelled out their proposals for groups in Belgium that should be
considered as national minorities under the Framework Convention: at state
level, only German-speakers should be considered a minority; and at local and
regional level, French-speakers should be considered a minority in the
Dutch-language and German-language regions, while Dutch-speakers and
German-speakers should be considered minorities in the French-language region.
On
3 December, the PACE released its report Dutch-Speakers’
Right to Health in Brussels and the Surrounding Municipalities in their own
language, including the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human
Rights.[16]
On 1 October 2002 five Belgian local councilors sent a petition to the assembly
on problems, which existed with regard to the possibility for Dutch-speakers to
receive treatment using their mother tongue. Boris Cilevics (Latvia, Socialist
Group) was appointed as rapporteur. The preliminary findings during his visit
to the country on 10 September 2003 led him to conclude that there was serious
discontent among the Dutch-speaking population with respect to the language
situation in the hospitals in Brussels and the surrounding municipalities. As
both Dutch and French languages were official languages, the issue was not
related to minority protection. As concluded by the Committee on Legal Affairs
and Human Rights, it was primarily a question of discrimination on the grounds
of language.
International Humanitarian Law
In July,
despite strong criticism from civil groups and human rights organizations, the
government agreed to amend the so-called Anti-Atrocity Law (adopted in 1993 and
amended in 1999)[17] to strip it of any claim
to jurisdiction except when Belgian interests are directly involved.
The
Anti-Atrocity Law put into practice the principle of “universal jurisdiction”
recognized under international law. It gave Belgian courts the authority to
prosecute persons accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes
regardless of where the crime took place or whether the accused or the victims
were Belgian nationals.
There had been
one trial under this law by the end of 2003. In June 2001, four Rwandans were
convicted by a Belgian jury on charges of involvement in the 1994 genocide in
their country. Complaints were filed against a number of former and present
heads of state. Many of them were not actively pursued. It was also ruled that
officials in office were protected by state immunity.
Intolerance, Xenophobia and Racial Discrimination
Belgium
has ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR). As of January, the country had a new Anti-Discrimination Law,
which provided not only for legal protection against racial discrimination, but
also against discrimination based on sexual orientation, handicap, state of
health, religious or philosophical beliefs, and age.[18]
The new law supplemented the 1981 Anti-Racism Law, which was limited by several
deficiencies, in particular, the difficulty of providing evidence of racially
motivated acts in a criminal case.
The
new law provided important solutions to the shortcomings of the 1981
Anti-Racism law. First, discrimination was defined in broad terms as an act,
whether intentional or not. That was a new civil approach, dealing with
discrimination as a situation that must be rectified rather than as a crime.
Second, the responsibility of proving the case was shifted from the victim to
the defendant. If the victim presented a case, which established a suggestion
of discrimination, it was up to the defendant to prove non-discrimination. The
law provided for a civil procedure under which claimants would be in a position
to have their damages redressed and compensated in the quickest manner
possible.
The
implementation of the provisions of the Anti-Racism Law had been entrusted to
the Center for Equal Opportunities and Fight against Racism (CECLR),
established in 1993. With the adoption of a new act of 25 February 2003, which
established racist and discriminatory motives as an aggravating circumstance,
the Center was empowered with the jurisdiction to deal with the expanded scope
of motives of discrimination (with the exception of cases of sexual
discrimination).[19] There
were two important cases under the Anti-Racism Law:
In its third periodic report on Belgium of 23 June the
European Commission on Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) expressed concern at the
continuing presence of racist and xenophobic discourse in politics in the
country and at the increasing success of parties that resort to racist or
xenophobic propaganda.[20]
An
important legislative act was the 1989 law regulating the financing of
political parties and its 1999 amendment, which provided for limitation or
cessation of donations to political parties hostile to human rights and
freedoms. In 2001, the Council of Ministers adopted a decree for the
application of the 1989 law allowing for the expropriation of public funding to
parties “manifesting hostility towards human rights.” The ECRI report recommended the adoption of
implementing arrangements enabling the Council of State to rule on withdrawal
of public financing from parties that displayed manifest hostility towards the
rights and freedoms guaranteed by the ECHR. On 28 January 2004, the Interior
Committee of the Chamber of Representatives adopted a draft law to that effect.
The Vlaams Blok representatives voted against the bill.
·
In 2000, the Center for Equal Opportunities and Fight
against Racism and the League for Human Rights took to court three non-profit
associations on charges of providing services and assistance to Vlaams Blok.
The Center and the League wanted to prove that racial discrimination underlies
the Vlaams Blok political doctrine. In 2001, the Correctional Tribunal
of Brussels decided that the case fell within the scope of political offences
and as such had to be judged by people’s jury. In 2002, following the appeal
lodged by the Center and the League as civil parties in the case, the public
prosecutor called for the conviction of the three associations in front of the
Brussels Court of Appeals. On 26 February the Court of Appeal equally
proclaimed its incompetence to deal with the case. On 18 November the Court of Cassation overruled the
decision of the Brussels Court of Appeals. The case will be tried before the
Court of Appeals of Gent.
In 2003, there was one conviction under the 1995 Law
against Negationism.
On 28 January the government signed the Additional
Protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime concerning the
criminalization of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through
computer systems. The protocol remained to be ratified.
Ant-Semitism
Manifestations
of anti-Semitism were on the increase in the country in the period following
the second intifadeh of October 2000.
Though the registered cases were fewer in 2003 when compared to the sharp increase
recorded in 2002, the 35,000-strong Jewish community was the continued target
of verbal abuse and harassment as well as of public oral and written
expressions, such as anti-Semitic slogans uttered during demonstrations and
anti-Semitic graffiti sprayed on Jewish owned shops or at public places.
·
On 13 June
an attempt was made to bomb the synagogue on Rue De La Boucheterre in
Charleroi. The attempt was foiled by the rapid intervention of the fire brigade
located nearby. The suspect, claiming that he had acted in the name of Allah,
was arrested. He was said to be mentally insane.
·
On 18 March a Molotov cocktail was thrown at the
Clinique Synagogue in Brussels. Neighbours noticed the flames and extinguished
the fire. The door of the synagogue was damaged.
Islamophobia
In the
aftermath of 11 September 2001, tendencies towards Islamophobia increased in
intensity. The hostile climate continued to be fuelled by extreme right parties
and some political figures in other parties. The most common offense was the
publication and dissemination of printed material targeting Muslims and persons
of Arab origin.
The ECRI report warned against the strong tendency to
read current manifestations of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia exclusively or
predominantly as intercommunity problems, notably opposing Arabs and Jews or
Muslims and Christians. ECRI stated that an adequate response to these
developments could only originate from concerted efforts of all relevant actors
composing Belgian society and should imply a thorough implementation of the
legal provisions against racism and discrimination in respect of all
perpetrators and for the benefit of all victims, with special emphasis on the
provisions against incitement to racial violence, hatred and discrimination.[21]
A positive development was the initiative of the
federal government to convene a national roundtable around the theme
"Living together,” to entrust the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Fight
against Racism with the establishment of local coordination units aimed at
proposing concrete actions promoting mutual respect and respect of the rule of
law, and to set up a common platform bringing together the federal government,
the regions and the communities to evaluate existing policies on the issue of
"living together" and make proposals for further action.
Asylum Seekers and Immigrants
After a period
of decrease in the number of asylum seekers at the end of 2002 and during the
first few months of 2003, their numbers began to rise from May onwards reaching
a total of 1,732 applications at the end of 2003. Most asylum seekers had their
claims examined through the accelerated procedure. The first instance decision
on the procedure to be applied was taken by the Aliens Office, on the basis of
both formal considerations (such as whether the applicant had transited through
a “safe third country”) and substantial considerations (such as whether the
claim was “manifestly unfounded”). This decision could be challenged before the
General Commissariat for Refugees and Stateless Persons (GCRSP). Figures
indicated that the Aliens Office decided on an accelerated procedure for around
90% of the total amount of asylum applications and that this decision was
confirmed by the GCRSP for around 70% of these.
In 2002 and
beginning of 2003, the Council of Ministers adopted a series of documents on
Belgium’s asylum and immigration polices. The lack of parliamentary debates on
the issue rendered the government vulnerable to criticism, as there was a
general feeling that the policies were opaque and lacked transparency.
In its third
periodic report, ECRI recommended that any measures taken with regard to
immigrants and asylum seekers, even when deemed to be sojourning illegally in
the country, should reflect the principle that they were not criminals. ECRI
drew attention to the fact that key institutions such as the police and border
controls needed to rectify their misconceptions and combat their prejudices
concerning immigrants.
Two basic
principles ran across the fault lines of the asylum and immigration policies
First, Belgium applied a restrictive interpretation of criteria envisaged in
the 1951 Geneva Convention. Second, the country had no legal provisions
regulating the granting of subsidiary protection to persons who did not fulfil
criteria for being granted refugee status, but who were in need of protection
for humanitarian reasons.
The government was confronted with a series of protests by asylum
seekers.
·
At the end
of July, six Kurdish asylum seekers from Turkey went on hunger strike at the
Red Cross Center of Nonceveux (Aywaille) protesting their expulsion orders.
Their application was found inadmissible and they appealed the decision before
the GCRSP. Their lawyer introduced a regularization demand for each one of
them. They also demanded the Ministry of the Interior to suspend their
expulsion to Turkey. On 2 September, they called off their strike following
negotiations with a GCRSP representative guaranteeing their non-expulsion for a
period of three months.
·
At the end
of July, some 300 Afghan asylum seekers went on hunger strike at the
Saint-Croix church in Brussels demanding collective regularization of their
status. Earlier, some 1,100 Afghans had received orders to leave Belgian
territory. The government first appointed an intermediary to carry on talks
with the strikers. The talks, however, ended in failure and the interior
minister sent the federal mediator to reconcile the differences between the
government and the asylum seekers. The strike was called off after 22 days as a
result of the negotiations held. The asylum seekers agreed to the settlement of
each individual case rather than to a collective solution, which the government
firmly denied.
·
In
September, several Iranian asylum seekers occupied the premises of the Free
University of Brussels to demand equal treatment of their applications. After
eight weeks, out of which 25 days were on hunger strike, their lawyers came to
an agreement with Belgian authorities guaranteeing that their demands will be
seriously studied.
·
On 27
December, a number of Iranian asylum seekers went on hunger strike protesting
the way their demands had been reviewed by the Aliens Office. The interior
minister stated that their applications were processed in a legal and objective
way.
During the
year, 7,742 asylum seekers and illegal residents were subject to forced
repatriation. A steady increase of forced repatriations had been registered
since 2000: 3,001 in 2000, 5,722 in 2002, and 7,510 in 2002. The interception
of persons entering the country illegally was also on the rise with 6,000
people facing immediate refoulement. On the other side, the voluntary
returns decreased with 2,820 cases in 2003 compared with 3,225 in 2002 and
3,633 in 2001. With all methods included, as many as 14,110 people had to leave
the country during the year.
There
were six closed centers in Belgium, which were administered by the Foreigners’
Office under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior. Two of the centers
were situated at the border: the centre INAD at the Brussels airport for
“non-admissible” cases, where foreigners were detained before their refoulement;
and the transit center 127 for foreigners who lacked the necessary documents to
enter the country and ask for asylum.
The
other four centers were in different regions of the country for immigrants
waiting for their documents to be processed. Despite the publication, in
October 2002, of a decree calling for humanization of the closed centers,
conditions there were not improved and their very existence was continuously
criticized by civil liberty groups. The League for Human Rights organized
campaigns demanding the closure of the centers.
A
persistent problem was the detention of accompanied and unaccompanied minors
and especially reports that unaccompanied minors were in some cases returned to
their countries of origin reportedly without previous verification of their
return to family or appropriate agencies there. The much publicized case of
Tabitha,[22] a
Congolese girl of five years at the time of her stay in the 127 closed center,
gave impetus to the establishment of the “Minors in Exile” platform involving
around 40 NGOs and public institutions.
In
December 2002, a framework law was passed providing for the automatic
assignment of a tutor to each unaccompanied minor in Belgium as well as to
discontinue the placement of unaccompanied minors in closed centers. However,
the law could not be enacted before the attribution of competences between the
federal states and the communities were clarified and the tutelage system could
not be installed as soon as the urgency of the matter warranted.
The
number of unaccompanied minors in the border closed centers decreased to 16 for
the first half of 2003 compared with 127 in 2001 and 59 in 2002. From January
to August 2003, 349 minors were registered as asylum seekers, while the police
intercepted 433 minors living illegally in the country. In the first half of
the year, eight unaccompanied minors were repatriated.
Trafficking in Human Beings
In a report published in November, the CECLR drew attention to the scope
of the organized criminality as regards trafficking in human beings. Out of 795
criminal cases in 2001, 114 (14.3%) were related to trafficking. It was known
that trafficking was the core business of 69 criminal organizations, while for
the rest of 45 organizations it was a complementary activity. Analyzing the
situation, it was concluded that all cases of trafficking were linked to
criminal organizations. The CECLR acted as a civil party in several court
cases.
·
On 7
April, the Correctional Tribunal of Antwerp convicted seven persons for
trafficking in human beings, exploitation of prostitution, and organized
crimes. An aggravating circumstance was the fact that one of the victims was a
minor. The two principal suspects were sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.
The long
overdue amendments to the 1997 directive on assistance to victims of
trafficking in human beings were finally adopted on 17 April and promulgated on
27 May. The new provisions enabled victims to extend their period of stay as
long as the investigation and court proceedings were in course. Victims were to
be granted residence permit when their complaint or declaration had led to a
first-instance conviction.
[1] As reported by
Human Rights Without Frontiers (IHF cooperating committee).
[2] Press Service,
28 November
2003, at http:// www.liguedh.org.
[3] Press Service of the League for Human Rights, 2 December 2003, at www.
liguedh.org.
[4] See chamber judgement on the case of Ernst and Others v. Belgium (Application No. 33400/96) of 15 July 2003, at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/hudoc/ViewRoot.asp?Item=0&Action=Html&X=403075803&Notice=0&Noticemode=&RelatedMode=0.
[5] See “Freedom of expression in the media in Europe” (Doc. 9640 revised), 14 January
2003, at http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc03/EDOC9640.htm.
[7] CAT, Conclusions and Recommendations of the
Committee against Torture, Belgium,
27 May 2003, at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CAT.C.CR.30.6.En?OpenDocument.
[8] CAT, op.cit
[10] See “Moniteur Belge”, 25 July 2003.
[11] See Le Soir, 27 August 2003
[12] See Anne Morelli, “A quoi sert
donc l’Observatoire des sectes”,, Le Soir, 7 January 2003
[13] See http://www.ciaosn.be. For a detailed analysis
of the report by Human Rights Without Frontiers, see http://www.hrwf.net/html/belgium_2003.html.
[14] The report introduced for the first time the category of “le bien-être physique et mental,” at http://www.ciaosn.be.
[15] Council of Europe Resolution 1492 (2001) as quoted in Resolution 1301
(2002), at http://assembly.coe.int.
[16] See http://assembly.coe.int/documents/workingdocs/doc03/edoc10009.htm.
[17] "Act on the Punishment of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law.
[18] Act of 20 January 2003 reinforcing the legislation against racism published in Moniteur Belge, 12 February 2003.
[19] Act of 25 February 2003 amending the 1993 law on the establishment of the Center for Equal Opportunities and Fight against Racism, published in Moniteur Belge, 17 March 2003.
[20] ECRI, Third Report on Belgium, 23 June 2003,
at http://www.coe.int/t/E/human_rights/ecri/1-ECRI/2-Country-by-country_approach/Belgium/Belgium_CBC_3.asp#TopOfPage.
[21] ECRI, op.cit.
[22] See
Report on Belgium, IHF Report 2003 Human Rights in the OSCE Region:
Europe, Central Asia and North America, at http://ihf-hr.org.