[14 August 2001]

 

 

 

 The information submitted by Belgium in accordance with the consolidated guidelines on the initial part of reports of States parties is contained in core document HRI/CORE/1/Add.1/Rev.1.

 

  The annexes to this report may be consulted in the files of the secretariat.

 

 

CONTENTS

 Paragraphs 

 

 I. INFORMATION OF A GENERAL NATURE..............................  1 - 11 

 

 II. INFORMATION IN RELATION TO EACH OF THE

 ARTICLES IN PART I OF THE CONVENTION.........................  12 - 403 

 

 Article 1..........................................................................................  12 - 13 

 

 Article 2..........................................................................................  14 - 48 

 

 Article 3..........................................................................................  49 - 73

 

 Article 4..........................................................................................  74 - 113 

 

 Article 5..........................................................................................  114 - 118 

 

 Article 6..........................................................................................  119 - 141 

 

 Article 7..........................................................................................  142 - 144 

 

 Article 8..........................................................................................  145 

 

 Article 9..........................................................................................  146 - 147 

 

 Article 10........................................................................................  148 - 160 

 

 Article 11........................................................................................  161 - 325 

 

 Article 12........................................................................................  326 - 345 

 

 Article 13........................................................................................  346 - 349

 

 Article 14........................................................................................  350 - 377 

 

 Article 15........................................................................................  378 - 385 

 

 Article 16........................................................................................  386 - 403 

Initial report of Belgium

 

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

 

I. INFORMATION OF A GENERAL NATURE

 

1.  The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter the “Convention”) has recently become part of the Belgian legal order.  Signed by Belgium on 4 February 1985, approved by the Act of 9 June 1999 and ratified on 25 June 1999, the Convention entered into force on 25 July 1999. It was published in the Moniteur belge on 28 October 1999.

 

2.  It should be noted at the outset that a bill to bring Belgian law into line with the Convention was approved by the Council of Ministers on 16 February 2001 (see below, in particular the commentaries to articles 1, 4 and 16 of the Convention). The opinion of the Council of State was delivered in June 2001.  The bill may be amended when it is considered by Parliament.

 

3.  Belgium, which endorses the principle enunciated in article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948, that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, is also bound by several other international instruments prohibiting torture or similar treatment, in particular: 

 

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 7 of which provides that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation; and

 

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), article 3 of which provides that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

 

4.  Duly introduced into the Belgian domestic legal order (parliamentary approval, ratification by the King and publication in the Moniteur belge), [1] the provisions of these instruments thus form an integral part of the Belgian domestic legal system and have mandatory force.  Since the Le Ski decision, delivered on 27 May 1971, the Court of Cassation has clearly affirmed the primacy over domestic legal provisions of provisions in international treaty law having direct effect in the national legal system.

 

5.  Belgian courts (criminal, civil, and, increasingly, administrative), must apply these international provisions to the extent that they are self-executing. By this is meant a clear treaty provision, legally self-contained, which imposes on the Belgian State an obligation either to refrain from acting or to act in a specific manner, and which may be cited as a source of law in itself by individuals under Belgian jurisdiction without there being any need for complementary domestic legislation. 

6. In the context of these two international instruments, Belgium has entered into commitments allowing individuals who consider that the rights guaranteed under them have been violated to bring actions against the State in the bodies established by the instruments in question. Belgium is a party to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which established the right of individuals to submit communications to the Human Rights Committee.  It has also made the declaration provided for in article 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights allowing individual petitions.

 

7.  Lastly, on 23 July 1991 Belgium ratified the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, of 26 November 1987 (entry into force on 1 November 1991), which established the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the Committee has the authority to visit any place within the jurisdiction of a signatory State in which individuals are deprived of liberty by a public authority (premises of the commune police and gendarmerie, custodial centres for foreign nationals, and prisons).

 

8.  The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture carried out two periodic visits to Belgium, from 14 to 23 November 1993 and from 31 August to 12 September 1997. A third visit is scheduled for 2001. Pursuant to the visits the Committee submitted to the Belgian Government reports containing sets of comments, observations and recommendations, thereby initiating a dialogue with the Belgian authorities.  On the basis of those reports the Government in turn formulated interim and follow-up reports on the measures taken to implement the recommendations contained in the Committee’s reports. The Belgian authorities have made a considerable effort to report not only on the legislative and administrative measures which, where appropriate, they were called upon to take, but also on the effective application in practice of the Committee’s recommendations. These reports, annexed hereto, have been made public.

 

9.  It should be noted that the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture was formulated on the basis of three fundamental principles: prevention, cooperation and confidentiality.  In this connection it must be emphasized that the Committee’s role is not to condemn States but, rather, to help them avoid ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. It is for the Committee to determine whether there are general or specific conditions or circumstances which may deteriorate to the point where acts of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment might occur, or which might lend themselves to the perpetration of such inadmissible acts or practices. Prevention is thus the keystone of the entire monitoring system instituted by the Convention.

 

10.  The Committee’s work is designed to be an integral part of the system of the Council of Europe for the protection of human rights; it represents a preventive non-judicial mechanism that complements the a posteriori judicial monitoring mechanism of the European Court of Human Rights.

 

11.  Lastly, various non-governmental organizations (Amnesty International, International Prison Watch, International League for Human Rights) were consulted in the drafting of this initial report. Annexed hereto is a set of documents and reports prepared by these organizations reflecting the situation in Belgium with regard to the Convention.

 

II. Information in relation to each of the articles in Part I of the Convention

 

Article 1

 

12.  Article 1 defines the concept of torture, as it is to be understood in the context of the Convention, and indicates which acts fall within its scope. This is the first time that the term has been defined in an international instrument. The definition is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application. 

 

13.  The definition of torture as such is not incorporated in the Belgian Penal Code. In fact the bill adopted by the Council of Ministers on 16 February 2001 with the aim of bringing the Penal Code into line with the normative provisions of the Convention [2] (see below) proposes no exact definition of torture. This approach, already adopted in other Belgian legislation on the subject (for example, article 2 of the Act of 7 February 1994 on human rights assessment of development cooperation policy), leaves room for a changing interpretation of torture in the light of the development of case law, avoiding a too narrowly predefined framework. [3]  On this subject the following two observations may be made: firstly, the interpretation of torture as defined in the new article of the Penal Code (art. 417 bis) does not take account of certain restrictions set forth in the Convention; secondly, it reflects the definition of torture emerging from the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights relating to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

Article 2

 

Paragraph 1

 

14.  Paragraph 1 establishes the obligation for States parties to take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under their jurisdiction.  It must be read in conjunction with article 4, paragraph 1, which requires States to make offences of all acts of torture, including attempts to commit torture and acts which constitute complicity or participation in torture (see below, article 4, paragraph 1, commentary).

 

15.  Here there enter into consideration not only the laws authorizing ratification of the relevant international instruments, first and foremost among them the Convention, but also legislative provisions and bills that criminalize torture and establish punishments for acts of torture, as well as those setting out judicial remedies available to victims. The judicial authority as a guardian of individual freedom under the Constitution acts within the framework established by the law.

 

16.  Thus the law prohibits and penalizes torture, and the judicial authorities punish it. This punitive machinery, by its very existence, has an obvious preventive and deterrent value. It is complemented by administrative measures, mainly consisting of guidelines from the executive on standards of conduct for government officials to ensure compliance with the law.

17. There follows a list of the principal legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures that Belgium has adopted to prevent the commission on its territory of acts of torture. A detailed consideration of the measures follows.

 

Legislative provisions

 

18.  Bringing Belgian law into line with article 2 of the Convention necessitates adaptation of the country’s substantive criminal law.  Existing provisions punishing acts of torture are not broad enough to comply with the Convention. Article 438 of the Penal Code applies only to acts of torture committed against an arrested or detained person; article 347 bis makes acts of torture an aggravating circumstance in crimes relating to hostage-taking; article 398 on intentional assault is too vague; and the scope of the Act concerning the prosecution and punishment of serious violations of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and of Protocols I and II of 8 June 1977 Additional to the Geneva Conventions is restricted to serious violations of the Conventions and Protocols. 

 

19.  To meet the requirements of the Convention, on 16 February 2001 the Council of Ministers adopted a bill designed on the one hand, to insert in the Penal Code three new articles characterizing torture (art. 417 bis), inhuman treatment (art. 417 ter) and degrading treatment (art. 417 quarter), as offences and also to adapt to the content of these new articles the articles characterizing torture as an aggravating circumstance in cases of hostage-taking (art. 347 bis), indecent assault or rape (art. 376).  The bill takes into account the comments by the Council of State in its opinion of 4 December 1998 on the preliminary bill on accession to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (see annex).

 

20.  Other legislative provisions include:

 

-        The Act of 16 June 1993 concerning the punishment of serious violations of international humanitarian law (as amended by the Act of 10 February 1999), which refers, in article 1, paragraph 3 (2) to “torture or other inhuman treatment, including biological experiments”;

 

-        The Extradition Act of 15 March 1874 (as amended by the Acts of 31 July 1985 and 14 January 1999) and the bilateral and multilateral treaties concluded between Belgium and other States;

 

-        The Police Functions Act of 5 August 1992, which provides, in article 1, paragraph 2, that the police services must, in the discharge of their administrative or judicial police duties ensure respect for and contribute to the protection of individual rights and freedoms and the democratic development of society. In the event of failure to respect these provisions, the injured party may initiate legal proceedings either against the police officer in question or the public authority by which he is employed;

 

-        The Act of 7 December 1998 (Moniteur belge, 5 January 1999) establishing an integrated police service, with a two-tier structure;

 

-        The Act of 13 May 1999 (Moniteur belge, 16 June 1999) embodying the disciplinary regulations applicable to members of the police services;

 

-        The Royal Decree of 30 March 2001 (Moniteur belge, 31 March 2001) embodying the legal status of members of the police services (“Mammoth” Decree);

 

-        The Act of 30 October 1998, adding article 422 bis of the Penal Code, on harassment;

 

-        The Organization Act of 18 July 1991 on oversight of the police and intelligence services;

 

-        The Act of 15 December 1980 on the entry, temporary and permanent residence and removal of aliens, as amended by the Acts of 28 June 1984, 14 July 1987, 18 July 1991, 7 December 1992, 6 May 1993, 1 June 1993, 6 August 1993, 24 May 1994, 8 March 1995, 13 April 1995, 10 July 1996, 15 July 1996, 9 March 1998, 29 April 1999, 7 May 1999 and 2 January 2001, by the Royal Decrees of 13 July 1992, 7 December 1992, 31 December 1993 and 22 February 1995 and by the Royal Implementing Decree of 8 October 1981, itself amended on several occasions;

 

-        The draft royal decree establishing the regime and regulations applicable to premises in Belgian territory run by the Foreign Nationals Office, where foreign nationals are held, placed at the disposal of the Government and kept pursuant to the provisions cited in article 74/8 (para. 1) of the Act of 15 December 1980 on the entry, temporary and permanent residence and removal of aliens. This draft royal decree will rescind the Royal Decree of 4 May 1999 (Moniteur belge, 6 June 1999) on the same subject;

 

-        The draft basic act governing prison administration and the legal status of prisoners (work of the Dupont Commission);

 

-        The Act of 1 July 1964 on social protection of the mentally handicapped and repeat offenders;

 

-        The Pre-Trial Detention Act of 20 July 1990;

 

-        The Protection of Mentally Ill Persons Act of 26 June 1990;

 

-        The Protection of Young Persons Act of 8 April 1965, as amended on several occasions, and the decrees adopted by the communities on this question (Decree of 4 March 1991 on assistance to young people adopted by the French community, and the coordinated decrees of the Flemish community of 4 April 1990); and

 

-        The bill on patients’ rights.

 

Administrative measures

 

21.  The administrative measures taken by the Government to implement the Convention include:

 

The General Prison Regulations, title III of which covers the inspection and oversight of prisons;

 

The draft police code of ethics;

 

General Order No. J/815 of 8 February 1996 on instruction for the armed forces in the law of armed conflict and the rules of engagement, with reference to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977, as well as to the Act of 16 June 1993, which is intended to establish the general framework for instruction in the law of armed conflict and the rules of engagement with a view to attaining standardization and ensuring that the rules that must be known and respected by combatants at varying levels of responsibility are taught.

 

  Paragraph 7 of the Code of Conduct of the Department of Defence (May 1999) also refers to human rights and international humanitarian law:

 

“7. I undertake to defend democracy and its values and to respect human rights and international humanitarian law in all circumstances.  I undertake to treat every individual with respect on a basis of equality. I will not tolerate any form of discrimination.  I will assist any individual in danger.”

 

Other measures

 

22.  Reference should be made to the work of the Working Group on the law governing detainees (administrative and judicial arrests).

 

Paragraph 2

 

23.  In Belgium, article 1, paragraph 2, of the Act of 16 June 1993 on the prosecution and punishment of serious breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and of the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 sets forth punishment for torture and other inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, whether in the context of international armed conflict or non-international armed conflict. [4]

 

24.  Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Act stipulates that no interest, no necessity of a political, military or national nature, may justify, even in the context of reprisals, the offences covered by article 1 of the Act.

 

25.  Article 5, paragraph 1, merely confirms in a legal instrument what has already been established in legal theory and precedent:  a state of necessity may not be invoked in humanitarian law as a general justification precisely because it is intended to govern exceptional situations. [5]

26. The legislator, in adopting article 5, paragraph 1, wished to establish a hierarchy of values a priori, without seeking to balance the minimal protection accorded individuals by humanitarian law against military necessities or the survival of the nation. [6]

 

27.  Further, the domestic provisions applicable in time of war (Decree Law of 11 October 1916 on states of war and states of siege, Act of 16 June 1937 granting the King authority to take the necessary measures for the mobilization of the country in the event of war, Act of 10 May 1940 on delegation of authority in time of war) and the Military Penal Code do not provide any justification for torture.

 

28.  Other than in the event of armed conflict, covered by the Act of 16 June 1993, ordinary law provisions, namely article 392 et seq. of the Penal Code (“Homicide and intentional bodily injury”) are applicable to cases of torture (see article 4 of the bill on alignment of Belgian law with the Convention).

 

29.  Under ordinary criminal law, necessity constitutes a general ground for justification which, although not enshrined in any legal instrument, is unanimously acknowledged in legal theory and judicial doctrine.

 

30.  Necessity is the situation in which a person finds himself when he has no other reasonable recourse than to commit an offence to protect an interest equal to or greater than that injured by the offence. [7]

 

31.  Is this ground for justification applicable in the event of acts of torture? In other words, is it possible to imagine exceptional circumstances other than armed conflict (covered by the Act of 16 June 1993) in which recourse to torture could be justified under criminal law?  A state of necessity can be admitted as justification only if it meets several conditions, namely: the value of the interest sacrificed must be less than or at most equal to that of the interest to be safeguarded; the right or interest to be safeguarded must be in imminent and grave peril; it must be impossible to avoid injury other than by the offence; and the agent must not have created by his actions the situation placing him in a state of necessity. [8]

 

32.  These are restrictive conditions but do not necessarily exclude the invocation of a state of necessity to justify acts of torture.

 

33.  This question has already come before the Penal Code Reform Commission, which has proposed the insertion, in that part of the future code relating to legal grounds for objective justification of an offence, of an article providing that “no interest or necessity, however vital it may be, can justify an act constituting inhuman or degrading treatment.  Neither a state of war or the threat of war or of armed conflict, nor a threat to national security, nor a state of siege or other state of emergency, nor the need for information, nor any other exceptional circumstance can justify, even as reprisals, violation of a peremptory norm embodied in international instruments relating to fundamental human rights”. [9]

34.  The work of the Penal Code Reform Commission has thus far not concluded. There is, however, agreement among legal theoreticians as to the “non-derogable” nature of humanitarian law, which includes the prohibition of torture. [10]  To our knowledge there are, however, no court decisions dealing with this issue other than in the context of armed conflict.

 

35.  Further, while article 1 of the Police Functions Act of 5 August 1992 provides that “the police services must, in the discharge of their administrative or judicial police duties, ensure respect for and contribute to the protection of individual rights and freedoms and the democratic development of society”, article 37 of the Act authorizes the use of force by any police official “having regard to the risks involved therein” and “only in order to pursue a legitimate objective which could not otherwise be achieved”.  The article goes on to state that “any recourse to force must be reasonable and proportionate to the objective pursued”. A legitimate objective thus justifies recourse by police officials to force.

 

36.  Recourse to force is distinct from torture, as defined in article 1 of the Convention (any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as …). That the legitimate use of restraint by the police forces may cause severe pain or suffering similar to one or other form of torture cannot, however, be completely excluded.

 

37.  It should be noted that several international norms are applied which take precedence over norms of domestic law [11] and which are directly applicable by Belgian courts. This is true of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 3 of this Convention, prohibiting torture, is formulated in absolute terms, without qualification or any possibility of derogation (of the Convention, art. 15). The same is true of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Belgium and directly applicable, which enshrines the non-derogable nature of humanitarian rights, including the prohibition of torture.

 

38.  In conclusion, it is not legally possible in Belgium to invoke a state of necessity, exceptional circumstances, a state of war, or any other ground that would justify torture.

 

Paragraph 3

 

39.  This provision prevents an order by a superior or public authority from being invoked as justification for torture.  Article 70 of the Penal Code states that “no offence is committed where the act is ordered under the law or at the command of higher authority”. This is true of the more specific instances cited in articles 152 and 260 of the Penal Code. [12]

 

40.  The case-law of the Court of Cassation has reduced the scope of this provision, which it interpreted as follows in its decision of 18 February 1953:

 

“(…) An act of violence by an official is legitimate only if, pursuant to an order duly given in accordance with the law or regulations, it does not exceed the level strictly necessary to comply with the order [13] (…).”

 

41.  The Court of Cassation has on several occasions acknowledged the principle of lawful resistance to abuse of authority, holding that:

 

“Whereas, exceptionally, individual resistance to an unlawful act of authority is legally recognized, it is on condition, in particular, that the act should be flagrantly unlawful and that it should necessitate an immediate reaction.” [14]

 

42.  Although the existence of this precedent is to be welcomed, it does not seem an adequate guarantee against abuse of authority in terms of article 2, paragraph 3, of the Convention. It is thus essential, to ensure that Belgian law conforms with the provisions of the Convention, to incorporate the content of article 2, paragraph 3, in the draft amendment to the articles of the Penal Code that characterize torture (art. 417 bis) and degrading treatment (art. 417 quater) as offences (see commentaries to articles 4 and 16 of the Convention).

 

Rules applicable to the integrated two-tier police force

 

43.  In the context of police reform in Belgium, the Act of 7 December 1998 (Moniteur belge, 5 January 1999) establishes an integrated, two-tier police force. The Act provides:

 

“Article 123. Police officials shall at all times and under all circumstances contribute to the protection of citizens and the assistance that citizens are entitled to expect, as well as, when circumstances so require, to respect for the law and the maintenance of public order.

 

They shall respect and undertake to ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

 

44.  The provisions that follow this article govern the duties of availability for duty, impartiality, integrity and discretion on the part of police officials. Equality of opportunity for men and women within the integrated police force is also guaranteed under article 129 of the Act.

 

45.  The Act of 13 May 1999 (Moniteur belge, 16 June 1999) containing the disciplinary regulations governing members of the police services provides that:

 

“Article 3. Any act or behaviour, even outside the course of official duties, which represents dereliction of professional obligations or is likely to imperil the dignity of the service constitutes an infringement of discipline and may give rise to disciplinary action”;

 

“Article 8. Members of the service who, in grave and urgent circumstances, in the context of preparation for or execution of an administrative or judicial police operation, refuse to obey the orders of their superiors or wilfully refrain from implementing them shall incur heavy disciplinary punishment. Nevertheless, a manifestly unlawful order may not be carried out.”

 

 

46.  Under article 1 of the Police Functions Act of 5 August 1992, police officers must, in the discharge of their duties, ensure respect for and contribute to “the protection of individual rights and freedoms and the democratic development of society. In the discharge of their duties they shall use force only under the circumstances provided for by law” (see below, commentary to articles 37 and 38 of the Act, under article 4 of the Convention).

 

47.  Further, it should be noted that the principle that a police official may not hide behind the orders of a superior to escape prosecution for violation of fundamental human rights is set forth in the Royal Decree of 30 March 2001 governing the legal status of police personnel (Moniteur belge, 31 March 2001):

 

“Article III.II.3. A member of the force to whom a manifestly unlawful order is given (…) shall immediately communicate his intention not to carry out the order to the superior who has given the order or to his superior”;

 

“Article III.II.4. A member of the force is responsible for carrying out the orders given to him by his superiors”.

 

48.  The principle is contained in the final paragraph of article 8 of the Act of 13 May 1999 on the disciplinary regulations applicable to members of the police services. “Nevertheless, a manifestly unlawful order may not be carried out”.

 

Article 3

 

Paragraphs 1 and 2

 

Removal of aliens

 

49.  In this regard Belgian law conforms to the provisions of article 3 regarding the prohibition of refoulement or expulsion to a State where the individual in question is liable to face torture.

 

50.  The legal corpus governing the removal of aliens includes the following instruments:

 

  The Convention of 19 June 1990 applying the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985;

 

The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation of 7 December 1944, approved by the Civil Aviation Act of 30 April 1947, which refers to removal;

 

The Act of 15 December 1980 on the entry, temporary and permanent residence and removal of aliens, as amended by the Acts of 28 June 1984, 14 July 1987, 18 July 1991, 7 December 1992, 6 May 1993, 1 June 1993, 6 August 1993, 24 May 1994, 8 March 1995, 13 April 1995, 10 July 1996, 15 July 1996, 9 March 1998, 29 April 1999, 7 May 1999 and 2 January 2001, by the Royal Decrees of 13 July 1992, 7 December 1992, 31 December 1993 and 22 February 1995, and by the Royal Implementing Decree of 8 October 1981, itself amended on several occasions;

 

Article 37 of the Police Functions Act of 5 August 1992, which determines the circumstances in which the use of force is authorized;

 

A protocol of agreement concluded on 24 May 2000 between the Ministry of the Interior and Sabena Airlines on “INADS” (aliens who are not admitted and who will be returned);

 

Final directives on the use of force in the event of removal, also formulated by the Minister of the Interior in 1999;

 

A ministerial decision of 11 April 2000 regulating conditions of transport on board civil aircraft of passengers posing particular security risks (Moniteur belge, 14 April 2000).

 

51.  The Act of 15 December 1980 provides for four different forms of removal (a general term) of aliens (see annex, guidance note on a comprehensive immigration policy, approved by the Council of Ministers on 1 October 1999).

 

Refoulement

 

52.  Refoulement (return) is the administrative decision on removal whereby an alien who has not yet crossed the Belgian frontier is forbidden to enter the territory of the States parties to the Schengen Agreement by the border control authorities, acting on the authority of the Ministry of the Interior.

 

53.  An alien may be turned back if he attempts to enter Belgium in one of the circumstances covered by article 3 of the Act of 15 December 1980 on the entry, temporary and permanent residence and removal of aliens, and by article 5 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement.

 

54.  This same Act specifies in article 3 that the rules it sets forth also apply unless a derogation is provided for under an international treaty or by law. Accordingly, no refusal of admission can be made in violation of the principles set forth in article 3 of the Convention. In practice persons who do not meet the legal requirements for admission to Belgium and who fear torture in the event of refoulement to another State seek asylum in Belgium, invoking a fear of persecution within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, which is binding on the Belgian authorities and which, in its article 33, prohibits return of a refugee to a country in which he fears for his life or freedom.

 

55.  In application of this rule the Council of State has reiterated on a number of occasions that it is forbidden to return an alien who has been refused the status of political refugee to his country of origin, where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. [15]  

 

Expulsion

 

56. Expulsion is the decision (Royal Decree) whereby the King may remove from the territory an alien permanently resident in Belgium or a national of the European Union or of the European Economic Area to whom a residence permit has been granted, following the opinion of the Advisory Committee on Aliens, which is called upon to advise on certain decisions relating to aliens. It is a consultative body made up of magistrates, lawyers and persons concerned with the defence of aliens' interests.

 

57. The above-mentioned aliens may be expelled only if they have committed serious violations of public order or national security.

 

Repatriation

 

58. Repatriation is the decision (ministerial order) whereby the Minister of the Interior may remove from the territory an alien who is not permanently resident in Belgium, after having obtained, where appropriate, the opinion of the Advisory Committee on Aliens.

 

59. An alien not permanently resident may be repatriated when he has violated public order or national security or has not complied with the conditions imposed on his stay, as provided for in the Act of 15 December 1980 (art. 20).

 

Order to leave the country

 

60. An order to leave the country is the administrative decision on removal whereby the Minister of the Interior or the Aliens Office requires an alien not authorized or permitted to stay more than three months or to reside permanently in Belgium to leave the country. This decision may be enforced in two ways:  voluntarily, in which case the decision generally sets a time limit for leaving the country, varying with the circumstances (article 7, paragraph 1, of the Act), and the alien is able to leave the country at his convenience; or forcibly, in certain cases, when the Minister of the Interior or the Aliens Office deems necessary, and the alien is taken to the border of the country from which he comes or into which he may be admitted.  He may be taken to the border in this way either immediately or after a delay (ibid., para. 3). In the latter case, he may be held for as long as is strictly necessary for the enforcement of the decision.

 

Personnel and departments responsible for expulsions

 

61.  The expulsion measure is notified by the Ministry of the Interior (Directorate-General of the Aliens Office), or on its instructions by a law enforcement officer.  Decisions on refoulement (return) are taken by the Aliens Office and are enforced at the airport by airline staff, assisted in some cases by the federal police. The forcible implementation of an order to leave the country is the task of the federal police (repatriation under escort).  Repatriation is accompanied by measures of a psychological, medical and social nature applied in advance, on departure and, in some cases, during the flight.

62.  Cases of removal (refoulement and the forcible implementation of orders to leave the country) are as a rule entrusted to the airlines. It should be noted that, under article 74/4 of the Act of 15 December 1980, a carrier which has transported to Belgium a passenger who is not in possession of the documents required to enter the country (as a rule a valid national passport, together with a visa where applicable), or who falls into one of the other categories referred to in article 3 of the Act, must transport him or arrange for him to be transported to the country from which he comes or a country into which he may be admitted.

 

63.  Agreements have been concluded with carriers to encourage the practice of boarding checks and lower the fines which are applicable when this obligation is not complied with.

 

64.  On 22 September 1998, Semira Adamu, a Nigerian, died during an attempt to return her to Togo. [16]  The Government decided to set up a special consultative commission to review instructions relating to removal, under the chairmanship of Professor Vermeersch (see annex, final report of 21 January 1999). The commission recommended, among other things, that in any expulsion procedure certain coercive measures should be permanently forbidden, “in particular any action to block normal breathing (for example, adhesive tape or a pillow over the mouth) and any forced administration of pharmaceutical products (except those administered by doctors in emergencies, which would naturally lead to abandonment of the attempted removal)”. New guidelines issued in July 1999 for the use of federal police engaged in accompanying persons being expelled reflect the Commission’s recommendations.  These guidelines are also applicable to the new police services.

 

Removal of unaccompanied minors

 

65.  In principle unaccompanied under-age children are not removed, except where their behaviour and available information concerning their overall situation indicate that they may travel alone and are sufficiently mature. An unaccompanied minor aged under 16 may be removed only if, in the country of origin, the country of usual residence, the country of nationality or each country into which he may be admitted, either a parent, a legal guardian or relatives can accommodate the minor, or a reception centre can take charge of him.

 

Number of expulsions

 

66.  The following figures are supplied for guidance:

 

 

Extradition

 

67.  Extradition is governed by the Extradition Act of 15 March 1874 (as amended by the Acts of 31 July 1985 and 14 January 1999) and by bilateral treaties (over 50) and multilateral treaties between Belgium and other States. Particularly noteworthy are the Convention of 19 June 1990 applying the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985, which also contains provisions relating to extradition (arts. 59-66), and recently (Act of 22 April 1997) the European Convention on Extradition concluded in Paris on 13 December 1957, its two additional protocols and its additional agreement.

 

68.  It should be pointed out that article 2 bis of the Extradition Act of 15 March 1874, a new article introduced by the Act of 31 July 1985 (Moniteur belge of 7 September 1985), goes a long way towards meeting the obligation under the Convention not to extradite any person to a State where he faces a risk of torture:

 

“Extradition may not be granted if there are serious grounds for believing that the request has been submitted for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person for reasons of race, religion, nationality or political opinion, or that the person’s situation might be aggravated for one of those reasons.” 

 

69.  Extradition will also be refused if the requesting State does not provide formal assurances that, if the death penalty may be imposed, it will not be carried out (article 1, paragraph 2 (3), of the Act of 15 March 1874). Even if the guarantee of the right to a fair trial in the requesting country is not in itself a condition of extradition, this requirement may constitute a ground for the Government to refuse extradition in its final decision as inadvisable. When ratifying the European Convention on Extradition, Belgium, like other countries, lodged a reservation under which it is authorized not to grant extradition when the person being sought might be brought before a special court, or when his surrender is likely to have exceptionally serious consequences for him, in particular because of his age or state of health.

 

70.  A refusal to extradite a person to a State where he might undergo acts of torture is not a new obligation where Belgium is concerned. Since the European Court of Human Rights handed down its decision in the Soering case, [17] Belgium has been under an obligation to refuse extradition in such cases, in the same way as all States parties to the European Convention on Human Rights. Hence the 1984 Convention does no more than strengthen an existing obligation.

 

71.  Nevertheless, this provision runs counter to what is laid down in certain bilateral treaties on extradition concluded by Belgium which do not list the risk of torture as a ground for refusing extradition.  However, if the other contracting State is also a party to the present Convention or the European Convention on Human Rights or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, these treaties prevail over an extradition treaty and offer grounds for refusing to extradite a person who runs the risk of being subjected to acts of torture in the requesting State.

 

72.  At present, there are only four States which are not parties to these conventions but have concluded a bilateral extradition treaty with Belgium:

 

Honduras (Convention concluded at La Paz on 24 July 1908, Moniteur belge of 4 July 1909);

 

Liberia (Convention concluded in Brussels on 23 November 1893, Moniteur belge of 11 May 1895);

 

Pakistan (Convention on extradition concluded on 29 October 1901 between Belgium and Great Britain and additional Conventions of 5 March 1907 and 3 March 1911, applicable to Pakistan by arrangement made by means of an exchange of notes dated Brussels, 23 January and 20 February 1952, Moniteur belge of 1 June 1952);

 

Swaziland (Convention on extradition concluded on 29 October 1901 between Belgium and Great Britain, applicable to Swaziland by arrangement made by means of an exchange of notes dated Mbabane, 13 May 1970 and 18 August 1970, Moniteur belge of 13 February 1971).

 

73.  It would be desirable to update these treaties in the light of the new imperatives relating to the protection of human rights facing our State. It is important to note that Belgium has never received any extradition request from these countries. In 1999, Belgium sought and obtained the extradition of a Belgian national from Honduras. In that case, no problem relating to the application of the Convention arose.

 

Article 4

 

Paragraphs 1 and 2

 

Current provisions

 

Criminal Code

 

74.  Bringing Belgian law into line with article 4 involves adapting Belgian substantive criminal law. The area of application of the current provisions aimed at combating acts of torture is not sufficiently broad to correspond to what is laid down in the Convention. In the first place, article 438 of the Criminal Code provides that:

 

“When a person under arrest or detention has been subjected to physical torture, the perpetrator shall be punished by forced labour for a period of 10 to 15 years.

 

“The punishment shall be forced labour for a period of 15 to 20 years if the torture has caused an apparently incurable disorder, or a permanent inability to work, or the complete loss of the use of an organ, or a serious mutilation.

 

“If the torture has caused death, the perpetrator shall be sentenced to forced labour for life.”

75.  However, this article covers only cases of torture suffered by a person under arrest or detention. Article 347 bis of the Criminal Code provides that acts of torture constitute aggravating circumstances in offences relating to hostage-taking.

 

76.  Mention should also be made of article 376 of the Criminal Code, which relates to rape or indecent assault, aggravated by acts of physical torture, and article 398, on wounding with intent to harm, but these provisions are not sufficiently precise to meet the requirements of the Convention fully.

 

Act of 16 June 1993 concerning the punishment of serious violations of international humanitarian law

 

77.  Mention should be made of the Act of 16 June 1993 concerning the punishment of serious violations of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 (Moniteur belge of 5 August 1993), article 1 of which condemns, inter alia, “torture or other inhuman treatment, including biological experiments”.

 

78.  However, this Act covers only “serious offences which, by action or omission, cause harm to the persons and property protected under the Conventions signed in Geneva on 12 August 1949 and approved by the Act of 3 September 1952, and under Additional Protocols I and II to those Conventions, adopted in Geneva on 8 June 1977 and approved by the Act of 16 April 1986, without prejudice to the penal provisions applicable to other violations of the conventions refer