Chapter I: Standing
Committee P, the watchdog providing an overall view of the police system
Standing Committee P is an external monitoring body answerable
to
Standing Committee P's essential mission is to examine the
general operation of the police forces, to pick up on any imperfections and
failings in the system and in police structures, methods and interventions,
and to formulate proposals and recommendations for putting these right.
To this end, Standing Committee P tries to gain a comprehensive view of the
police system by monitoring its general running whilst also identifying and
objectively assessing individual and structural problems. It then compiles
reports, issues opinions and makes recommendations as appropriate. Standing
Committee P thus occupies a special position as a global, overall watchdog
that monitors the general operation of our police system and the implementation
of laws on policing and the integrated police force, as well as a host of
other individual laws.
Through its reports, inquiries, analyses, opinions and recommendations, the
Committee provides Parliament and the authorities with the knowledge they
need to improve, modify and maintain the efficacy and efficiency of the police,
thereby preserving public confidence in the institution.
The individual, specialist monitoring and supervisory activities carried out
by Standing Committee P go beyond observations, opinions and recommendations:
they also include checking on measures that have been taken and implementing
the recommendations and opinions formulated.
In early June, the Standing Police Monitoring Committee
submitted its annual activity report 2004 to Parliament. The report was approved
on 12 July by the special Chamber committee responsible for providing parliamentary
support to Standing Committee P. It can be consulted on the Committee's website
at www.comitep.be.
As it does every year, the report tries to give an overall view of the running
of the Belgian police force, not simply by describing the main inquiries undertaken
but also by providing a detailed analysis of the phenomena and trends it has
detected within the police system as a whole. The report also makes a number
of positive and constructive recommendations for optimising the quality of
policing in
Its status as an independent and neutral external monitoring body, assigned the task, under Article 1 of the organic law of 18 July 1991, of monitoring the police and intelligence services and protecting in particular the rights conferred on citizens by the Constitution and the law in the context of police work, makes Standing Committee P an important national partner for international human rights bodies. The Committee's mission to protect the fundamental rights of citizens overlaps with those of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), the United Nations Committee against Torture (CAT), the Human Rights Committee, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) and the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD).
The diversity of knowledge and information currently possessed by Standing Committee P and the expertise in assessing failings in the police system which it has built up over the past 10 years in its capacity as a global, integrated police watchdog enable it to carry out its mission as an independent, external monitoring body in an increasingly effective way. The Committee is a reliable source of knowledge and one that is extremely useful to the international bodies responsible for monitoring the respect of human rights, particularly by police forces.
At the request of the government and with the consent of
Parliament, Standing Committee P is involved with drawing up the periodic
reports submitted to various international monitoring bodies in accordance
with the obligations contained in the international human rights agreements
to which
Standing Committee P has also been asked on several occasions
to receive representatives of international monitoring bodies during periodic
or ad hoc visits to
When the organic law of
Following a number of events in 2003-2004, Standing Committee P wishes to
examine in further detail the principle of independent monitoring.
Following the oral presentation in July 2004 of the 4th
periodic report submitted by
Members of Investigation Department P fall into one of two
categories: (1) statutory members in the strict
sense of the term: these are either members taken on by Standing Committee
P as statutory staff of Investigation Department P, or members appointed after
secondment who have become statutory staff of Standing Committee P by a transfer
mechanism provided for under Article 22c of the organic law [1] ;
(2) members who have come from a police force and who are, further to a secondment, appointed by Standing Committee
P as members of Investigation Department P for a renewable term of five years.
This appointment confers on them a specific status which is not the same as
that held by other members of a police force or by individuals on secondment
from a police force to another force, service or institution. This status
has been clarified very recently by the two laws of
Under Article 20 of the organic law, at least half of the members of Investigation Department P should come from a police force or an administrative department where they have acquired at least five years' experience in posts relating to police force activities. It is important to remember that when Standing Committee P was set up it was originally specified – as a temporary provision under Article 67 of the organic law – that the first members of Investigation Department P should be appointed through secondment from a police force or administrative department. This explains why there has always been a relatively large number of investigators from police forces within the Department.
The composition of Investigation Department P is intrinsically linked to the types of missions it is required to carry out, namely: (1) judicial police missions; (2) a certain amount of follow-up to complaints filed by private individuals and (3) inspection inquiries (thematic inquiries, follow-up inquiries, etc.) and audits. The first two of these categories require the input of investigators with experience and expertise relating to judicial inquiries, hearings, police techniques and so forth. The judicial inquiries entrusted to Investigation Department P are by nature highly sensitive and consequential and therefore call for specialised police training. Experts from non-police backgrounds come into their own in inspection inquiries and audits.
The organic law
[3] provides for various measures to guarantee the independence and neutrality
of members joining Investigation Department from a police force. These include:
(1) the possibility of being permanently transferred to the statutory
staff of Investigation Department P; (2) the fact that members retain
their rights in their force or administrative department of origin; (3) the
fact that members are subject to the disciplinary authority of Standing Committee
P and not of their corps of origin; (4) the appointment to a higher rank;
(5) specific conditions relating to promotion and (6) priority
in obtaining a new post within the police force at the end of the secondment.
Defining an ad hoc status for Investigation Department P and gaining
acceptance for such a status is of course no easy task, but one of the aims
of the measures listed above is now, arguably, to enable Standing
Committee P to reduce (gradually, over a period of five to ten years) the
large proportion - initially called for by the law – of investigators on secondment
from a police force and to bring this proportion down to 50% of total staff
numbers, as called for by Article 20 of the organic law. This is achieved
by encouraging individuals to return to the police forces and by arranging
permanent transfers into the statutory organic framework of Investigation
Department P. Since Standing Committee P has now been
in existence for 10 years, the transfer mechanism provided for under
Article 22c of the organic law, as inserted by the law of
The following should also be noted: (1) When carrying out their monitoring activities, the members of Investigation Department P operate indisputably and directly under the authority and responsibility of Standing Committee P, which receives the reports on all inquiries undertaken. Standing Committee P is responsible both for opening inquiries and for their conclusions. A collegial decision determines whether the conclusions are adopted. Whatever the case, the reports produced and presented are those of Standing Committee P and not of its Investigation Department or an individual investigator. (2) When carrying out judicial missions, the members of Investigation Department P do not operate under the direct authority of Standing Committee P in connection with the case at the centre of the inquiry or investigation, but rather under the exclusive control of the judicial authorities. Questioning the independence of the members of Investigation Department P when undertaking their judicial missions is therefore tantamount to questioning the independence of the judicial authorities themselves, in the same way that questioning their independence in monitoring missions is to question that of Standing Committee P.
3. How inquiries into crimes and misdemeanours alleged against members of the police forces are divided between Investigation Department P on the one hand and the police forces and General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police on the other
Under Article 16 paragraph 3 of the organic law of 18 July 1991 on monitoring police forces and intelligence services, Investigation Department P is responsible, on the initiative or at the request of the relevant public prosecutor or examining magistrate, for conducting inquiries into crimes and misdemeanours alleged against members of the police forces, alongside other judicial police officers and personnel and with a right of priority over them. To this end, all members of Investigation Department P are assigned the rank of judicial police officer and auxiliary to the public prosecutor.
Even back in the 1990s, Standing Committee P's parliamentary
support committee stated on several occasions that it had far too often had
occasion to observe that the judicial authorities systematically assigned
to Investigation Department P inquiries into crimes and misdemeanours alleged
against members of the police forces, thereby turning the Department into
specialist police service for the public prosecutors' offices.
Although the situation has to a certain degree altered since then, some public
prosecutors' offices and presiding magistrates still, unfortunately, all too
often seem to take no account of the gravity of the incidents, the complexity
of the cases in question or the special remit of Investigation Department
P as very clearly specified by the law and continually reaffirmed by Parliament
since 1990, notably in the recommendations made in 1996 and 1998 by the special
committees responsible for providing parliamentary support to the Standing
Intelligence and Security Services Monitoring Committees.
In order to prevent Investigation Department P from being
called in too often and inappropriately in connection with judicial inquiries,
the law of 1 April 1999
[4]
- further to the law of 7 December 1998 creating a
two-tier, integrated police service - added a fourth
paragraph to Article 16 of the organic law of 18 July 1991,
which states: "The carrying out of judicial inquiries may not jeopardise
the carrying out of the Investigation Department's other missions. To this
end, the Minister of Justice shall, in accordance with Article 143b of
the Judicial Code and at the suggestion of Standing Committee P, rule which
inquiries into the crimes and misdemeanours alleged against members of the
police forces should be assigned mainly to the Investigation Department and
which to the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police or the police
forces."
As specified in the relevant parliamentary documents, the aim of this provision
is to limit the judicial inquiries assigned to Investigation Department P
to those requiring the services of highly specialised investigators. Although
judicial inquiries into serious incidents, such as violence, corruption or
other serious offences committed when applying the restraints authorised by the Code of Criminal Procedure (searches, particular
investigative methods, etc.), come within the scope
of this department, the same is not true of less serious offences or those
involving a less complex inquiry.
The proposed mechanism is based on the one added in Article 5 paragraph
3 of the policing law of 5 August 1992 by Article 153 of the law
of 7 December 1998 creating a two-tier, integrated police force
[5] .
The law of 1 April 1999 also added an Article 20a
to the organic law of 18 July 1991 whose aim was to limit the number
of investigators specially assigned to carry out the judicial inquiries referred
to in Article 16 of the organic law, such that the number of investigators
specially assigned to carry out the judicial inquiries referred to in Article 16
may not be less than a half or more than two-thirds of Investigation Department
P's total staff. The law of 3 May 2003 [6] again limited this number by specifying that the number of investigators
specially assigned to carry out the judicial inquiries referred to
in Article 16 may not exceed half of Investigation Department P's staff.
Further, the law of
Standing Committee P lost no time in carrying out its share
of the work specified in Article 16 paragraph 4 of the organic law, by
formulating - on various occasions and following several exchanges of views
and consultations with the different parties involved - a proposed method
for distributing the inquiries into crimes and misdemeanours alleged
against members of the police forces. This proposal was
passed on to the Minister of Justice, who apparently submitted it to the board
of public prosecutors for their opinion.
Standing Committee P based its proposal on the dual principle, clearly expressed
in the relevant legislation, whereby Investigation
Department P is a specialised entity with a specific remit and one that should
only be called on when other bodies are not empowered or able to take action
(principle of subsidiarity).
Over six years after paragraph 4 was added to Article 16
of the organic law and over four and a half years after Standing Committee
P submitted its first proposal on the subject, it is now high time to move
things forward and to respect the will of Parliament as clear and repeatedly
expressed in the legislation.
Chapter II: Inspection
and follow-up inquiries
In 2004, Standing Committee P managed and carried out, via
its Investigation Department, 68 inspection inquiries (in the strict
sense of the word), of which 29 were begun in the same year. A number of these
inquiries have already resulted in a report (final, interim or follow-up)
being submitted to Standing Committee P's special parliamentary support committee.
Most have therefore already been discussed at meetings with the special committee.
Each of these reports has also been submitted to officials or authorities,
in most cases the Ministers of Home Affairs and Justice or particular judicial
authorities, who have always had the opportunity to express their thoughts,
opinions, comments or suggestions and to make any specific requests. When
necessary or helpful for understanding the reports, these reactions have also
been taken into account in the public version of the reports or have been
commented on or explained as appropriate during discussions with the parliamentary
support committee or upon publication.
The inspection inquiries can be divided up into three major categories corresponding to Standing Committee P's three main areas of concern, as set out in the organic law of 18 July 1991: inquiries relating to (1) the protection of human rights and the efficiency/efficacy of the police; (2) the coordination and efficiency/efficacy of the police; (3) the efficiency of individual police forces. A number of inquiries are grouped together under the heading 'Other inquiries'. These are essentially based on inspection inquiries, audits or pre-audits, 'quick scans', follow-up inquiries, inspections of other monitoring bodies or follow-up inquiries into internal inspection bodies as part of the Committee's global and integrated monitoring activities.
4. Use of restraint and forceOver 10 years of police monitoring [7]
, the use of restraint and force by police has been one of the most
prominent areas dealt with by Standing Committee P. Each year, the Committee
examines a relatively large number of complaints and reports of police misconduct
involving alleged arbitrary intervention and/or unauthorised or unjustified
use of force. Although investigation reveals many of these complaints and
reports of misconduct to be unfounded, taken as a whole they throw light on
the problem situations, failings and shortcomings which arise in day-to-day
police work and which can breach the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens.
With this in mind, Standing Committee P pays close attention to a number of
issues in this area, such as arms management, searches and arrests and the
use of dogs in police work.
This enquiry into the use of restraint and force is based on: (1) direct and structured observation of police practices in the field; (2) analyses of data relating to what could be termed excessive use of force; (3) analyses of data relating to the use of weapons, sprays and firearms; (4) finding a balance between theory and practice by questioning and monitoring selection procedures, education and training on the one hand and internal regulations and procedures on the other. Standing Committee P will pursue its inquiry in the period 2005-2008.
If the police force is to be a community-oriented institution,
there needs to be accountability and greater responsibility on the part of
all officials with police powers. As regards the use of restraint and force,
this implies a moral obligation on the part of all such officials to always
use restraint and force with the following three objectives in mind: (1)
applying the monopoly of force which they have been given in a professional
manner; (2) respecting individuals' human rights; (3) ensuring
that working conditions are as safe as possible. The use of restraint and
force must also give rise to a report, debriefing, examination, assessment
and, if necessary, retraining.
Without prejudice to its own actions, Standing Committee P notes that the
use of restraint and force is currently not automatically reported and regular
controls are not carried out on such use, except where the police intervention
involved a life-threatening situation or the use of force led to a life-threatening
situation.
There is no official requirement in Belgium to declare the use of force, except
where firearms are involved or in certain types of incidents specified by
Common Directive MFO-3 of 14 June 2002, issued by the Ministers
of Justice and Home Affairs and relating to the management of judicial and
administrative police information.
Standing Committee P considers that assessing and monitoring the use of restraint
and force by officials with police powers must be an ongoing task for executive-level
personnel within corps and forces, both in order to improve general safety
conditions and to ensure that the monopoly of force is applied in a professional
manner. Monitoring the effective and efficient deployment of individuals and
resources is one aspect of this.
Following completion of this phase of its inquiry, Standing Committee P makes the following initial recommendations: (1) Training and education must be provided as a matter of urgency on the subject of consultation on the ground and exchange of information between police personnel and/or forces and with the dispatching centre and the general coordinator. The behaviour of police personnel on the ground and of the command structure must also be monitored and amended in this area. (2) Safety while carrying out police work must take precedence over the purely routine implementation of organised inspection activities. Executive-level personnel must be responsible for this and take action to change behaviour patterns, if necessary. (3) All use of force must be subject to both internal monitoring and follow-up. This means more frequent debriefings, pre-determined policing assessment points and a greater emphasis on references to the use of force and any consequences thereof when assessing official reports. (4) Finally, all use of force must be declared on a form for the purposes of official external monitoring.
Standing Committee P wishes to emphasis that officials with
police powers, when discharging their day-to-day duties, must introduce themselves
to members of the public and explain the reason for their intervention – except
in cases where this would defeat the object of the exercise.
The use of balaclavas is not permitted except at the express command of an
executive-level staff member. Currently, all the evidence indicates that balaclavas
are used more to preserve the anonymity of the wearer and cover up the use
of force internally.
Standing Committee P is concerned to ensure that the police
respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens. Accordingly, it has
worked hard over the past few years at monitoring the conditions in which
individuals are detained in police facilities following arrest. When a complaint
or a report of police misconduct criticises detention conditions, on-site
checks are systematically made. Further to the comprehensive inquiry, begun
in 1997 and continued in 1998, into holding cells located in Belgian police
buildings ("Les amigos ou chambres de sécurité installés dans
les bâtiments des services de la police belge"), a further 62 visits
were made to holding cells in 2002 and a follow-up report produced. Selective
visits were scheduled in 2003 and 2004. A number of surprise inspections were
carried out in 2003 and 2004, some of which involved police forces visited
on previous occasions.
Identical inspections will continue on a regular basis. Comments and recommendations
will be formulated each time a breach of regulations or a failing is observed
to have taken place.
Based on the data collected by the investigators, it can
be concluded that the inspections carried out in previous years, and the reports
that have been published, have not always resulted in the expected improvements:
some outdated infrastructure is still being used and, more importantly, internal
guidelines incorporating the recommendations of Standing Committee P have
still not been distributed to all members of staff.
As regards infrastructure, the imminent construction of new buildings is often
used to justify the fact that no budget has been set aside for repairing cells.
As to internal guidelines, where these exist they are incomplete and do not
deal with all aspects of the problems that can arise. The main problems remaining
are: the failure to provide free food and drink for persons under either administrative
or judicial arrest, the failure to give persons under arrest a written copy
of their rights (right to see a doctor if necessary, right to have another
person informed in the event of administrative arrest, provision of food and
drink, etc.) or to display a copy of these rights in the vicinity of the cells
and the failure to indicate in the register of arrests what measures have
been taken in relation to persons being detained. On the other hand, the treatment
given to foreign nationals placed in holding cells at Zaventem airport prior
to deportation is of an acceptable quality, as are the detention conditions.
Pending a royal decree setting out minimum standards for police cells, executive staff at all levels must ensure that the rights of detained persons are respected. Such persons must be informed of their rights and in the event of administrative arrest in particular must be allowed to inform another individual of their arrest and must be provided with food and drink at normal mealtimes.
6. Incidents in custodyAfter analysing a series of complaints and reports of police
misconduct and studying an investigation carried out in the United Kingdom
as part of which all deaths of citizens occurring during or after contact
with or detention by the police automatically led to an in-depth inquiry,
Standing Committee P decided, in consultation with its parliamentary support
committee, to pursue a similar inspection inquiry of its own. However, it
did not limit its inquiry to situations where death actually took place but
widened the scope to include the detection and analysis of all incidents –
in particular those resulting from a police restraining measure – that can
occur when citizens are under police surveillance and may constitute a violation
of their fundamental rights and freedoms.
The key element here is the 'critical state' of the individual, which results
either in death or in the individual being admitted to hospital for treatment
(in some cases individuals seek the assistance or treatment they need themselves,
subsequent to the incident).
Standing Committee P has drawn up a series of observations and recommendations focusing on the following aspects in particular: familiarisation with the idea of 'critical state' (cf. risk indicators) so as to be able to detect it and take the appropriate action; communication with the person under surveillance and risk analysis; calling in a doctor; collecting, recording and exchanging information on the state of the individual; monitoring the individual (in particular, taking additional safety measures, transferring the individual, the role of the duty officer, the use of technology such as surveillance cameras, the role of the custody officer at provincial and judicial district level), the wide gap between theory and practice, etc.
This inquiry was completed in early 2005 and submitted to the parliamentary support committee. In the future, Standing Committee P does not wish to confine itself to following up this type of incident; it is particularly keen to encourage internal assessment and the learning processes that will necessarily result from such assessment.
7. Provision of board to people under arrestFurther to a number of complaints made to Standing Committee
P, a specific investigation inquiry was conducted with a view to updating
the information on detention and reception conditions in particular police
zones for people under arrest.
There still seems to be a poor awareness and application of the circular of
Standing Committee P will update these observations in 2005-2008 in order
to check whether structural solutions have been implemented, both in the zones
in question and in a sample of other zones, whether or not they have faced
the same type of problem in the past.
Previous annual reports have shown that judicial searches
and the undressing of individuals as part of a body search are performed in
different ways by different police forces. This could jeopardise the fundamental
rights of citizens.
Standing Committee P examines a large number of complaints relating to this
issue. Current legislation, case law, doctrine and
directives have once again been examined in detail. Corps directives in the
police zones where complaints are received are examined particularly carefully
in order to identify any deficiencies.
It can never be emphasised enough that body searches violate one of the fundamental
rights enshrined in the Belgian constitution, namely the right to privacy.
Accordingly, removing the clothes of an individual during a search must remain
the exception rather than the norm. It must not be done systematically, must
be justified by specific individual circumstances and must be based on significant
prior evidence. An official report of the procedure must always be compiled.
Judicial or administrative police officers do not appear to be well enough
trained in advance of searches in order to take the necessary responsibility
and issue the relevant guidance.
We note that in most cases police school syllabuses only cover the letter
of the relevant legislation. A clarification of body search methods, in particular
regarding the undressing of individuals, based for example on a case study,
strikes us as being of the utmost necessity. However, the feasibility of this
will also depend on the amount of class time that can be devoted to the subject.
It would also be useful, in our opinion, to hold refresher courses on this
subject for officials with police powers who are already involved with police
interventions, in addition to the basic training provided at police schools.
The fact that - as cases examined over the past few years have shown - such
officials themselves admit that they are not familiar with internal corps
directives makes this all the more important.
Launched in 2003, Astrid is an inspection inquiry that aims
to monitor and evaluate the operation of the ASTRID (All-round Semi-cellular
Trunking Radiocommunication Integrated Dispatchings) communication system
for use by the police and, by extension, the security services in general.
This monitoring leads on from the inspection inquiry into the handling of
calls to the emergency number 101. In concrete terms, its aim is to reveal
the benefits of the Astrid communication project and when and how the system
can be optimised.
It emerged clearly that Astrid is not being implemented as smoothly as expected.
The large number of players involved proportionately increases the number
of critical success factors and is hindering the optimal running of the high-tech
communication system. Furthermore, interdisciplinary integration of the system
and cross-border operational cooperation are not immediately achievable in
the short term.
The delay in implementing Astrid is largely due to staff shortages at the
information and communication centres (CICs). The problems relate to both
the number and quality of CIC staff, and a solution is still being sought
for the latter.
The arrival of the CIC means more change within the police force as a whole.
There is a willingness to cooperate among the different zones but this remains
limited. In view of the measures agreed on at the Council of Ministers meeting
on 30-31 March 2004, we are likely to see an accelerated implementation
of the project in the near future. ASTRID, the company responsible for the
system, has promised short-term radio coverage and all the CICs, except for
the
Implementation of Astrid will continue to be examined as part of the study
into the running of the CICs/101 police emergency call centres. The reports
relating to this inspection inquiry will be based on questions and on a methodology
focusing mainly on users of the Astrid system.
The project is costing police forces a lot of money; consequently, it must
be constantly ensured that all project partners are working towards maximum
added-value and thus a more effective and efficient integrated police system.
Initiatives such as the local information hub and similar IT-based projects
as well as education and prevention projects and the local dispatching centres,
undoubtedly have an impact - in cost terms and otherwise - on the smooth (and
integrated) operation of the two-tier, integrated police force.
Given the circumstances and special
situation prevailing in the administrative district of the Brussels Capital
Region, a final check was needed before the inquiry into the operation of
the CICs and the implementation of Astrid takes over fully from the 101 inspection
inquiry, which can then be closed in its present form.
Where police radio communication is concerned,
Despite the measures taken by the federal government, the operational implementation
of the CIC is also being affected by staffing problems. The recruitment, selection
and training of neutral Belgacom call-takers has not yet resulted in enough
personnel, and staff flow from the zones is non-existent. Furthermore, staff
from the
During a surprise visit to the
Both the
The radio communication situation in
Given the decision of the
The report resulting from Standing Committee P's inquiry
into the organisation of supervision and management of football matches was
published in its Annual Report 2003. The Committee continued to monitor this
issue in 2004-2005.
High quality official reports - the logical result of a consistent
reporting policy - are an important weapon in the fight against hooliganism.
Despite the initiatives of the FPS Home Affairs football unit, which range
from training to selective individual contacts, a number of police zones are
(still) producing documents that do not enable legal action to be taken.
We do not intend to anticipate the conclusions of the report on violence (use
of force), but interviews with officials from the two football units have
shown that police mobilisation is still too often based on historical
data rather than on available operational information.
As regards body searches, Standing
Committee P wishes once again to stress that full and systematic undressing
is not permitted before the individuals concerned have been committed to a
cell. If, however, this proves necessary, it must be justified beyond any
doubt whatever in the arrest log and/or in the specific ad hoc report.
The aim and reasonableness of the measure must be accounted for without the
slightest ambiguity. Executive-level personnel must display unfailing vigilance.
The following recommendations may be made concerning large-scale arrests:
(1) Independently of the legislation on the use of languages in administrative
and/or judicial matters, senior officers should ensure that persons arrested
(administratively) are informed of the measure being taken. (2) Rigorous
reporting is necessary in the following areas: (a) food and/or drink
supplied; (b) informing a third-party; (3) Compiling a procedure
would help to ensure that large-scale arrests take place in optimum conditions.
There needs to be more communication with event participants.
Although sufficient capacity must be provided to ensure that official reports
and hearing reports are drafted professionally, it is just as vital, when
managing and overseeing events, to provide supervision and coaching in the
following areas: (1) dealing with the arrival of participants; (2) the
drafting needed to ensure that official reports and hearing reports do not
simply turn into standard, non-individualised documents.
Standing Committee P believes that applying the philosophy of 'community-oriented'
policing - meaning, first and foremost, visible and accessible frontline police
- to supervising and managing football matches is the best way of reducing
the number of cases where restraint, force or violence is resorted
to. Since it is not easy to deal with an individual when in the middle of
a group, it is generally more advisable to apply the principle of 'delayed
intervention'. As regards prevention, the following recommendations may be
made: (1) Work must continue to raise awareness of this issue among executive-level
personnel and their monitoring role during collective interventions must
be optimised. (2) Specific guidelines on the recourse to restraint and
force must be handed out at all briefings. (3) When it is necessary to
apply restraint or force, this fact must be noted down in as much detail as
possible in an ad hoc report or, where appropriate, an official report.
The following measures are intended to prevent, as far as possible, complaints
on the grounds of racism, discrimination and unequal treatment: (1) ensuring
appropriate cooperation between police forces and specialist services (multicultural
unit, juvenile delinquency unit, etc.); (2) explaining the police approach
when doubts exist among the public (minority groups in particular); (3) adopting
a uniform approach with visitors and local supporters.
Based on the different (legal) interpretations in this area, Standing Committee
P concludes that it is not possible to prevent people from taking photos
of police personnel supervising and managing events, which implies that
the equipment used to take such photos cannot be seized or destroyed by the
police.
Having the right information at the right moment is the key factor
for ensuring success when managing and supervising events. The same is true
of football, although preparation for football matches is different from that
of other events. The hard reality is that in order to manage and supervise
these types of events successfully, considerable human and material resources
and backup need to be allocated and deployed (or at least made available for
deployment).
Finally, as regards the drafting of official reports, please refer
to the recommendations outlined above. It is necessary to stress once again
the importance of an appropriate policy on reporting, one that can be applied
uniformly in practical situations.
Building on its analysis of complaints and inquiries and
on a number of reports from bodies such as the Centre for Equal Opportunities
and Opposition to Racism, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture
and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), the United Nations
Committee against Torture (CAT) and the European Commission against Racism
and Intolerance (ECRI), Standing Committee P began in 2003-2004 to pay closer
attention to the repatriation and removal of illegal immigrants.
Repatriation consists of returning individuals residing illegally in
Standing Committee P's inspection inquiry was influenced, amongst other things,
by the decision of the Minister of Home Affairs, following the Semira Adamu
case, to mandate the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police
(AIG) to monitor repatriation cases at its level and within its area of responsibility.
The AIG now writes an annual report on this issue for the Minister of Home
Affairs.
During the first half of 2004, the implementation of deportations
was somewhat paralysed by the decisions taken as part of, or as a consequence
of, the Semira Adamu case and by the reaction of staff at the National Airport
Security Detachment (DSAN) to these decisions, namely to stop carrying out
deportations requiring the use of restraint or force.
In 2004, this attitude led to a reduction from 12,631 to 11,047 in the number
of attempted deportations and a drop in the success rate from 73.5% to 67.6%.
No fewer than 17 DSAN staff members were injured as the result of opposition
and/or violence from deportees.
However, the main reason for failed repatriations was the verbal refusal of
the individual and cancellation of the procedure by the Immigration Service.
Physical and verbal violence was used frequently by deportees during attempted
removals by both special and scheduled flight. However, there were no particularly
notable incidents to report.
The Vermeersch Commission II's final report, entitled Fondements d’une
politique humaine et efficace d’éloignement ("Foundations of a humane
and effective deportation policy"), was submitted to the Minister
of Home Affairs on
This year as in previous years, the AIG carried out numerous checks on both
special and scheduled flights, in accordance with instructions issued by the
Minister of Home Affairs. In total, no fewer than 40 checks were carried
out.
The DSAN carries out its work scrupulously, although it was noted this year
that some procedures were discharged in a less professional manner than in
the past.
One of the DSAN's main challenges for 2005 is no doubt the implementation
of the Vermeersch Commission II's recommendations. According to the implementation
document issued by the Minister of Home Affairs, as many recommendations as
possible must be implemented. This will require efforts from the supervisory
authority and the DSAN, in terms of both finances and the use of capacity.
Other prospects include: (1) implementation of a number of EU directives
(on the extradition of prisoners, the deportation of accompanied non-admissible
passengers transported by other airlines); (2) reactivation of the social
and psychological support teams; (3) re-examination of the training
of border inspectors/accompanying adults.
The Vermeersch Commission II also gave its opinion
on Standing Committee P's role in repatriations (recommendation 12):
"Ongoing external monitoring by Standing Committee P, not only through
examining individual complaints under the supervision of Parliament, but also,
where necessary, through inspections supplementary to those carried out by
the General Inspectorate and special inspections on the ground as dictated
by the circumstances."
It is important to remember at this point that this is the recommendation
of a commission set up by the executive, relating to the monitoring by one
institution - answerable to the legislature – of other bodies set up by the
same component of the executive. Standing Committee P will discuss this recommendation
with its parliamentary support committee and will make the necessary arrangements
with the different ad hoc partners and stakeholders.
Seventy police zones
- 34 in Flanders, 34 in
Internal monitoring involves more than dealing with the procedural aspects
and the substance of complaints, at the point of entry, in an essentially
reactive way. Designed as a tool for improving the management of corps, the
individual complaints handling procedure ought to contribute systematically
to a comprehensive analysis of the operation of the corps and should result
in measures being taken to improve the internal running of the corps (by adopting
a structural approach that focuses on the causes of complaints). In police
practice, the management of complaints is undoubtedly still in an early exploratory
phase.
The study has revealed discrepancies between the
predefined objectives (stated goals) and the reality (real goals) where
handling of complaints is concerned.
As regards handling the procedural aspects of complaints, there was
shown to be room for improvement in the following areas: (1) follow-up
of the handling process and the time taken to process complaints; (2) clarity
and completeness of case files; (3) the way incoming complaints are recorded;
(4) the way complainants are informed that their complaint has been received;
(5) the (written) notification of the member of staff involved; (6) the
reports to external partners and to the relevant authorities.
As regards handling the substance of complaints, complaints
appear to be examined from both points of view and with the necessary objectivity.
However, standard reports on internal investigations are not systematic, and
transparency and accountability are therefore jeopardised. Problems relating
to the in-depth handling of complaints are mainly centred around providing
(1) the complainant with well-founded and substantiated information
on the handling procedure, including notification of the possibility of a
second reading by Standing Committee P; (2) the staff member involved
with constructive feed-back on the internal investigation and the final conclusion.
The general recommendations made by Standing Committee P in its Annual Report
2003 remain as relevant as ever: (1) The need to replace or update the
POL 48 circular governing internal monitoring, where agreement with disciplinary
legislation and evaluation methods is vital. (2) As regards the form
assumed by the citizen's right to complain and the internal handling of complaints
by the two-tier, integrated police force, there is clearly need for a coherent
framework that catalogues the formal aspects of the procedure as well as the
in-depth elements. (3) Basic and continuing training of those responsible
for internal monitoring will help to implement a complaints handling procedure
that is uniform and systematic in each police force whilst also ensuring that
complaints are dealt with efficiently.
One of the reasons why a formal complaints handling procedure is not often
to be found is linked to the fact that no formal and practical standard has
so far been set out in a regulatory text, despite the fact that the police
themselves are in favour of a regulatory framework for handling complaints.
Regulation would certainly result in much more attention being paid to complaints
and the way they are dealt with. However, it would be difficult at the present
time to make the right to complain about police behaviour subject to regulation
only.
Learning by doing is perhaps the best way forward.
14. Indirect tax on the transportation of individuals under administrative or judicial arrest ('tax on unbecoming behaviour')
Following a local council decision on
The inquiry into the application of this tax in 2003 by the Mechelen police
did not reveal the slightest indication of racist behaviour or the abuse of
power. The allegations made by the Arab European League (AEL), according to
which the police were using the tax as a pretext for attacking a particular
group of people, are an unfounded generalisation. However, the inquiry did
show that in the particular case that led to the AEL's reaction in the press,
the police arrested the individual concerned without sufficient cause: the
absolute necessity required to make an administrative arrest, as set out in
Article 31 of the law on policing (
The inquiry into the application of the tax on unbecoming behaviour by the
local police in Mechelen revealed that this tool is used reactively following
incidents that constitute unbecoming behaviour. These usually end in administrative
or, less often, judicial arrest. Analysis of cases in which the tax was applied
in 2003 shows that the procedure was correctly followed in the majority of
cases.
However, it would be advisable to make a number of modifications to the procedure,
and the way it is applied and monitored, to ensure maximum legitimacy. Furthermore,
the specific unbecoming behaviour requiring arrest should be documented and
used as the touchstone for evaluating and monitoring whether the police are
indeed helping to protect individual rights and freedoms. Time will tell whether
the overhauled legislative arsenal of municipal administrative sanctions lives
up to the expectations relating to the punishment of unbecoming behaviour
by means of administrative fines. In terms of efficiency, it is to be hoped
that a system of indirect taxation on the transportation of people under arrest
will continue to be a feasible weapon for tackling problems of unbecoming
behaviour, as is the case in Mechelen.
Over the past few years, the trend towards privatisation
of the public sector has also begun to affect the field of security policy
and policing. Amongst other things, the laws has given specific powers to
a certain number of officials and employees of private security services,
powers that share a number of common features with the duties carried out
by the police. Accordingly, these individuals and services, when acting in
this capacity, come within Standing Committee P's area of responsibility.
The inquiry is still in its infancy. The first stage involves defining the
conditions that must be met by the public-private partnership in a state governed
by the rule of law, and based on which the essential tasks of the authorities
within such a state can be clearly defined. Based on this overview, a number
of subjects will be dealt with and examined thematically on a year-by-year
basis, using a risk analysis system. This thematic approach should enable
specific recommendations to be made, if necessary, at the close of an inquiry,
and allow the results of the inquiry to be measured and monitored. The approach
is also flexible enough to allow priorities to be adjusted based on new circumstances.
The phenomenon of human trafficking is one of the priorities of the
national security plan (Plan national de sécurité) and accordingly
is one of the obligatory concerns of the integrated police force.
For this part of the inquiry, a number of towns and municipalities were chosen
where prostitutes had already been questioned during the first and second
parts of the inquiry. Besides
The corps that were visited all
have specialist human trafficking divisions within their local investigation
departments.
The first phase of the inquiry clearly showed that despite certain differences
in the approaches taken towards prostitution, the general tendency is to concentrate
the phenomenon in a tolerance zone. However, the monitoring tools used vary
from one place to another: checking rental contracts of the rooms used, municipal
taxes, provision of 'barmaid' status and making it obligatory to declare
this to the police at the start of the contract, etc.
Window and bar prostitution seem to be under control in the zones visited.
The bars and rooms are visited regularly and subject to in-depth controls.
Prostitutes being seen for the first time are also often invited for a discussion,
during which they are informed about 'victim of human trafficking' status
and other matters.
Street prostitution is a particular problem in the zones where it takes place
and places a considerable burden on local communities which only have limited
legal and technological means to tackle it. Also, because street prostitution
is by nature a mobile phenomenon, it tends to 'move away' in response to police
action and then move back to its preferred locations as soon as it can afterwards.
Private prostitution and escort services are less easy to monitor, but
at the same time only cause minor problems (if any at all) for local communities.
This area has also seen an improvement. During the first phases of the inquiry
in 2001 and 2002-2003, it emerged that these kinds of prostitution were subject
to very little if any monitoring. However, the various interviews held since
then show that the police are not unaware of the phenomenon. The strategies
applied vary from one place to the next simply because this kind of prostitution
is so inaccessible.
There are a number of groups of individuals, set up as non-profit associations
(ASBLs), that we consider particularly likely – in certain cases and under
certain circumstances – to become involved with forced prostitution. Such
groups therefore deserve to receive appropriate attention. Interviews with
executive-level staff have revealed that all the zones studied are keeping
an eye on the development of this kind of association.
Both the
Both SJAs also conduct financial inquiries in this area and their integrated,
multidisciplinary approach has been nothing but positive.
In terms of the overall picture, criminal analysis is carried out at
The Ghent SJA cannot easily penetrate the ASBL and private prostitution scene,
but this is in any case subject to in-depth monitoring by the local police.
Neither of the two SJAs has complained about the flow of information, whether
information from the local police or feedback from the Directorate-General
of the Judicial Police (DGJ).
The need to standardise prostitution policy remains an issue. In this
respect, the critical success factors are close partnership between the public
prosecutor’s office and the external services and clear agreements with these
bodies. According to an
One way of improving the situation would be to impose restrictive measures
such as sealing up rooms where the necessary conditions - enrolling on the
trade register, keeping a staff register, VAT, etc. - have not been met.
A uniform approach to monitoring private prostitution escort services is urgently
needed. Also needed are specific guidelines governing this form of proactive
inquiry, guidelines that would afford both police personnel and the individuals
being monitored a certain degree of legal security.
As far as the police forces are concerned, the new circular
As regards the 'victim of human trafficking' status, experience has also been
positive - provided investigators assess the options properly and do not simply
transfer the first prostitute they meet. Almost all the people interviewed
believe this to be another critical success factor. Increasing the number
of reception facilities and improving the existing ones is also considered
to be necessary.
The lack of instruments for effectively curbing prostitution, mainly street
prostitution, attracts particular criticism. The inconvenience caused by such
prostitution and the actual incitement to debauchery are particularly difficult
to prove. Brothels are not currently obliged to keep up-to-date 'hotel forms'.
The introduction of such a measure would be beneficial, not only to ensure
correct taxation but also, according to one zone chief, because it would give
police forces a better understanding of the links between individuals (who
knows whom in the prostitution world).
As regards the death threats made against some investigators, checks
have been performed and such threats appear not to be systematic. Only in
the Brussels SJA are such incidents reported, at an average rate of one a
year. A proactive approach is needed in response to these types of threats.
Those involved need to be shown clearly that the police and legal system are
aware of their plans.
In 2004,
The fact that this training brings together all players involved in the field
is a distinct advantage, not only because it helps to harmonise knowledge
levels but also in terms of network training. The training also includes on-site
visits, which help participants to better understand how the partners operate
and the problems they face.
Throughout the different phases of this inspection inquiry, the overall
observation was that work is increasingly geared to a multidisciplinary approach,
both within the integrated police force and in relationships with external
partners. The most positive development is without doubt the growing involvement
of neighbourhood constables, who can make a significant contribution to the
fight against human trafficking and the monitoring of tolerated prostitution.
Their contribution therefore illustrates something required by the national
security plan, namely ongoing attention to integrated police work, founded
essentially on the philosophy of community-oriented policing.
At SJA level, there exists a relatively clear idea of the various forms of
prostitution thanks to SJAs' own investigations and to the information provided
by the local police. As regards information flow in this particular area,
a positive trend appears to be emerging with respect to the district information
hubs. None of the forces voiced any criticisms about the flow of information
from local to federal level or about the feedback received.
There does, however, appear to be a need for better access to certain external
databases. Given the international dimension of human trafficking, the
The initiatives that have been developed should be seen as the beginnings
of interaction between the different cogs in the new policing structure and
with external partners. This is also true of the studies into specific phenomena
conducted in a number of zones, which are the first step towards implementation
of a local security diagnostic procedure, as provided for in the comprehensive
security framework document (Note-cadre de securité integrale) of 30-31 March 2004.
This development will need to be pursued in a structured manner in the future.
One possibility would be to harmonise the strategic and operational foundations
underpinning the fight against human trafficking, based on best practices
in the different police corps. The main aim of this would be to prevent movement
towards zones that are less able to cope with the phenomenon.
In early 2004, Standing Committee P submitted a report to
the Ministers of Home Affairs and Justice concerning the attitude of certain
police personnel during interventions - in their capacity as judicial or administrative
police personnel or police officers - involving youngsters.
The only concrete result so far has been the publication of the circular on
preliminary measures for dealing with unaccompanied foreign minors. For the
rest, the Home Affairs Minister passed on Standing Committee P's recommendations
to the working group on arrests, which was set up under the chairmanship of
the Federal Public Service Home Affairs Directorate-General for Security and
Prevention Policy.
In 2003 and 2004, Standing Committee P carried out an inspection
inquiry into domestic violence and the way the integrated police force deals
with it. Given the extent of the problem, Standing Committee P will continue
to monitor this issue in 2005-2008.
Including domestic violence in the zonal security plan might provide an impetus
for freeing up resources and drawing attention to the issue of intrafamilial
violence. More attention also needs to be paid to the level of training of
police personnel.
In 2004, Standing Committee P analysed complaints of discrimination, racism and intolerance, in the broad sense, lodged against various members of the police forces. The study, referred to as "zérotage bis", aimed to detect current trends and attitudes and is contained in a separate report. Standing Committee P also began a thematic inquiry into internal discrimination within the police forces, the aim of which was to follow up activities carried out by the integrated police force, specifically relating to this issue. Since 2003, Standing Committee P has also been undertaking follow-up to all the initiatives implemented within the police forces.
The issue of discrimination and racism within these forces is the subject of an integrated policy covering various projects and initiatives. However, in practice, the actions undertaken do not always run smoothly. Thus, the integrated police force action plan was judged too ambitious and will have to be amended, whilst a university study into integration within the police force had to be abandoned for budgetary reasons.
The two-tier, integrated police force must continue the effort it has made in the past and keep up its consistent approach to the problem.
20. Local and central arms registersFollowing an article in the press, Standing Committee P decided to investigate the logging of arms in the national arms register. The inquiry, which consisted of visits to the three main players involved (arms manufacturers, police zones and the department responsible for the national arms register), revealed backlogs at a number of levels in the process. At local level, this is due to insufficient priority being given to the issue and to a lack of capacity. Currently, the unreliability of the national arms register means that it cannot yet be used as a police aid or as a basis for policy decisions. If this situation is to be improved, all the components of the two-tier, integrated police force, along with the administrative and judicial authorities, must agree to the necessary investment and to make the make the issue a priority concern.
21. The two-tier, integrated police force: federal support for the local levelStanding Committee P's aim in this inquiry was to ensure that the federal component of the two-tier, integrated police force properly understood the needs of the local component and provided adequate support. It also wanted to monitor the presence and relevance of assessment criteria and the level of 'customer' satisfaction.
Although initiatives based on the principle of the Service Level Agreement (SLA) have been implemented by the federal component of the two-tier, integrated police force as part of the support missions, a sufficiently detailed and comprehensive catalogue of the assistance provided is still, regrettably, lacking. Standing Committee P also notes the lack of a uniform approach to supervising and monitoring the support provided and the differences in contents and follow-up.
The lack of information available at the federal level of the two-tier, integrated police force means, therefore, that Standing Committee P cannot, as things currently stand, carry out a sufficiently reliable and relevant analysis of federal support as a whole.
If suitable information is to be made available and new
measuring instruments developed, the resources of the federal component of
the two-tier, integrated police force will need to be used in a well thought-out
way. The degree to which the federal component fits in with the objectives
of Standing Committee P's inquiry thus depends on a deliberate choice and
the amount of priority given to the component.
Standing Committee P will ask its parliamentary support committee what follow-up
should be given to this inquiry and will, in accordance with the agreements
in place, provide it with an assessment of the available information.
The observations and recommendations on information management contained in Standing Committee P's previous annual report have been incorporated into the objectives set out in the 2004-2007 national security plan.
The initiatives resulting from these objectives include budget increases, a communication plan, training, development of district information hubs, measures aimed at improving the contents of the national databank, development of tools for processing information, adding to and operating the national databank and finally the creation of a data warehouse.
Standing Committee P therefore recommends that the projects already begun and the associated timetables should be adhered to rigorously. To this end, the good practice of the national databank's support committee is an excellent initiative which deserves to be encouraged and continued. Furthermore, a simple solution should be found to bring the guidelines on information management more into line with what is taking place in the field, whilst not losing sight of the local level's capacity for assimilation.
23. Interpolice crime statisticsThe statistical data come from the national databank but the incomplete nature of the police data recorded in the databank and the delay in encoding affect the reliability of the published figures.
There is therefore an urgent need to find a quick and accurate way of entering data into the IT system, not only so that we have accurate crime figures at our disposal but also to ensure efficient operational use.
In view of this, the published figures must be used cautiously until the problems surrounding data entry into the national data bank have been sorted out. There can be no question of comparing absolute figures without specifying their level of reliability, without taking account of the contextual data and without forgetting that they represent only a part of the actual crime committed.
24. Capacity: Brussels Capital districtAn inspection inquiry was set up to compare the human resources available within the local and federal components of the two-tier, integrated police force and the legal missions within the Brussels Capital administrative district.
Standing Committee P is still finding it impossible to obtain relevant information relating to capacity. There is also no real system for measuring capacity in the Brussels Capital zones, which makes comparison with other zones impossible.
The argument in favour of increasing capacity therefore seems unjustified and unjustifiable.
To improve the situation and enable an in-depth analysis
to take place, it would be helpful to set up a system, by means of a ministerial
directive, for measuring capacity and performance; to thoroughly examine the
current workload and use of capacity; to identify the main areas of expenditure;
to thoroughly examine the non-operational sectors; to set up a pilot project
centred around a practical system for measuring capacity and workload (this
would prove that such an approach is feasible and might encourage the Brussels
police zones to introduce the system); to implement a system of benchmarking,
taking as a basis those zones where effective measures have been taken and
where there is effective follow-up and justification of the resources used.
A specific action plan for the
It was decided to conduct an inquiry into the work carried out by terreinondersteuners or field support staff (TOs). The resulting study shows that the work of TOs has a positive impact on the way the force operates. However, the specific character of the police zone must be taken into consideration and training, for example, provided, focusing on multiculturalism and marginality to give the TOs a better understanding of the situation during an intervention. TOs must also possess the skills required for their particular work, not only in terms of professional experience but also emotionally, intellectually and educationally. It is also very important that TOs have the support of their superior officers, who must instil maximum motivation.
26. Operation of certain police zonesAs well as conducting inspection and follow-up inquiries in particular zones, Standing Committee P carried out a study of 'reception' and 'intervention' procedures in the local component of the two-tier, integrated police force in a number of zones. This study revealed that management tends to concentrate mainly on the formal organisation of reception and sometimes neglects the quality-related aspects of services provided to external customers. If this strategy were reversed, a number of problems currently encountered within these pillars would be eliminated. Further, where 'intervention' is concerned, management in the different zones use different rules to assess the ideal number of teams in the field. In strategic and operational terms, management's procedures are not always drawn up in a standard way and are sometimes not adhered to by teams keen to meet the objectives set for them. Likewise, reports – official or otherwise – are not always drafted following interventions. Furthermore, this pillar too often acts in a reactive, rather than proactive, way.
Standing Committee P recommends that the staff appointed to 'reception' positions be chosen based on a profile of key skills. They should have undergone specific joint training and, if justified, still more rigorous psychological selection. Reception, in its structural component, must also work to ensure that police stations are accessible and well located.
27. Railway policeIn response, amongst other things, to complaints made to Standing Committee P regarding the railway police, the Committee decided to launch a specific inspection inquiry. It observed that a number of operational problems exist in this force, due in part to the fact that members of the current railway police force come from different police backgrounds. The management seems to be aware of the situation and wishes to participate actively in Standing Committee P's inquiry.
The results of the different parts of the inquiry will be brought together in an interim report to be submitted to Standing Committee P's parliamentary support committee in 2005-2006.
28. Police websitesThe situation with regard to the two-tier, integrated police force websites changed little during 2004. There has evidently been no improvement in coordination - in terms of style and lay-out - between the federal component's sites and those of the individual police zones. It is also regrettable that there is no reference to Standing Committee P's website on the links pages of any of the websites of the components of the two-tier, integrated police force.
The federal level has, however, said that it will be putting forward an operational framework project within the next few weeks. Standing Committee P feels it would be worthwhile to be involved with the follow-up to this implementation and will monitor developments in this area.
29. Administrative police officersThe follow-up inquiry into the guidelines on administrative police officers and the interzonal cooperation agreements drawn up in connection with the various legal powers possessed by administrative police officers reveals that, within the police zones questioned, there is no directive or procedure setting out all the powers and responsibilities of such officers and that memos are drafted on the basis of general notions derived from legal texts, circulars, and recommendations by internal and external monitoring bodies. Furthermore, with the exception of the legal provisions on administrative arrest, no document sets out a procedure for and/or practical details of the other powers of administrative police officers. This said, a number of police