COMMITTEE
P
STANDING POLICE MONITORING COMMITTEE
WATCHDOG BODY FOR OVERALL MONITORING OF THE POLICE SYSTEM
A SUPERVISORY MONITORING BODY
The law of 18 July 1991[2] – hereafter referred to as the ‘organic law’ – established comprehensive external supervision and monitoring of police forces in Belgium via a neutral and independent institution answerable to parliament: the Standing Police Monitoring Committee*.
OF ALL FORCES AND ALL OFFICIALS WITH POLICE POWERS
Committee P is responsible for external monitoring of all police forces, their officers, and officials with police powers.
The police forces and officials subject to the scrutiny of Committee P are: (1) the federal and local police; (2) certain administrative bodies or departments run by public authorities or bodies serving the public interest whose members are agents for, or officers in, the judicial police force: they are mainly bodies with police powers, such as the Customs & Excise department of the FPS Finance, the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control (FANC-AFCN), the BIPT/IBPT[3], the Gaming Commission within the FPS Justice; the Directorate General for Mobility and Road Safety (Direction générale Mobilité et Sécurité routière) within the FPS Mobility and Transport; (3) certain persons individually authorised to investigate and establish violations of the law: there are several hundred officials in various ministries with police powers to help them discharge their duties in sectors as diverse as the economy, employment and labour, agriculture, the environment, public health, social affairs and public works.
They include, for example, certain staff members of the Belgian national railways (SNCB/NMBS), the Federal Agency For The Safety Of The Food Chain (Agence fédérale pour la Sécurité de la Chaîne alimentaire), the special Tax Inspectorate within the FPS Finance, the environmental police division of the Directorate General for Natural Resources and the Environment within the Ministry of the Walloon Region, and the Environmental Inspection division of the Department of the Environment and Infrastructure of the Flemish Community.
In this context, Committee P also monitors the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police and the special internal monitoring and inspection services within forces or police corps under Article 3 of the organic law.
Although Committee P’s task is to examine the manner in which the decisions adopted by the judicial authorities, the public prosecutor’s department and the administrative authorities (in particular the Ministers of the Interior and of Justice, provincial governors, district commissioners and mayors) are implemented by police forces and officials, it does not stretch to ‘policing’ them directly.
Committee P conducts inquiries into: (1) police activities and methods; (2) internal police guidelines and regulations; (3) any documents governing the conduct of members of police forces, except guidelines on investigative policy and the prosecution of criminal offences, and guidelines on administrative police policy; (4) the activities and methods of the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police and of the internal inspection bodies within forces and police corps.
SERVING PARLIAMENT
Committee P is directly answerable to parliament, on behalf of whom it provides indirect and ongoing monitoring of police bodies that are answerable to the executive authority (and, for the purposes of carrying out certain tasks, are placed under the authority of the judicial authorities).
A THREE-PRONGED GOAL
Under the organic law, Committee P’s actions follow three underlying principles: (1) protecting the rights conferred upon citizens by the Constitution and the law, (2) coordinating police forces, and (3) ensuring that police forces operate efficiently in the broadest sense.
Committee P thus seeks to ensure that, in terms of efficiency and respect for civil liberties and human rights, the actions of police forces and officials complement each other and those of any other social bodies involved.
MISSION
In order to achieve this threefold goal, Committee P’s key objective is to examine how police forces work and, if possible, to pinpoint any imperfections or failings within the system, structures or methods or in connection with police action, so that proposals may be made with a view to remedial measures.
Accordingly, Committee P works to develop and present a vision of all aspects of the way in which the police operates and the way in which administrations, forces, officials and other individuals with police powers carry out their duties.
In this context, it enjoys a privileged position as an overall watchdog body of the way in which the Belgian police system operates and of how the laws governing the police function[4] and the integrated police force[5] are implemented.
A POSITIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE APPROACH
Committee P’s main mission is to ascertain the degree to which political leaders could or should improve the way in which the police forces for which they are responsible function. It also examines whether any changes should be made to the legislation applicable to the police forces in question.
The main aim in conducting such checks is not to highlight individual sanctionable incidents in police forces in general or in any one particular police force: that remains the role of the judiciary, police and disciplinary authorities, and, where appropriate, the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police.
The special supervision and monitoring activities carried out by Committee P go beyond accident reports and issuing opinions and recommendations; they also involve monitoring measures taken and implementation of recommendations or opinions issued.
STRUCTURE OF COMMITTEE P
Committee P comprises a standing committee of five members and is assisted in its tasks by the Investigation Department.
A STANDING COMMITTEE
Committee P comprises five members including a Chairman – who must be a magistrate – and a Vice-Chairman. There are also five deputy members. Committee P is also assisted by a clerk. All the members of the Committee and the clerk are appointed by the Chamber of Representatives, which also has the power to dismiss them.
Members are appointed for a term of five years that may be renewed twice. Members must have the qualities of loyalty, discretion and integrity that are essential when handling sensitive information. The organic law makes explicit provision to prevent certain incompatible persons from sitting on Committee P in order to guarantee its neutrality and independence.
THE INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT
Committee P’s Investigation Department is headed up by a Director General who is assisted by two deputies. The Director General and his two deputies are appointed by Committee P for a 5-year term which may be renewed twice.
Before taking office, they are sworn in by the Chairman of Committee P.
The members of the Investigation Department have the rank of investigative prosecutor (commissaire-auditeur). They are appointed by Committee P on the recommendation of the Director General of the Investigation Department for a renewable 5-year term of office. They are seconded from a police force or administration in which they have acquired at least five years’ experience in duties associated with police activities.
The Investigation Department operates under the authority of the Standing Committee, which assigns investigations to it (inspection inquiries) and receives reports on all investigations conducted. The Investigation Department therefore does not merely function as a department of Committee P, it is also a specialised police department assigned to conduct investigations concerning members of police forces. However, it does not ‘police the police’ by intervening exclusively and as a matter of course when a police officer breaks the law.
It can – on its own initiative, or if so instructed by the state prosecutor or competent examining magistrate, even taking precedence over other judicial police officers and agents – conduct inquiries into crimes and misdemeanours allegedly committed by members of the police force or by officials with police powers (judicial inquiry).
In this context, the Director General, the two deputy directors general and the members of the Investigation Department have the rank of judicial police officer, auxiliary to the public prosecutor. The members of the Investigation Department conduct their activities as judicial police officers under the guidance and supervision of the competent magistrate, in accordance with the provisions of the code of criminal procedure and certain special laws pertaining to the powers of judicial police officers.
The provision of the Internal Rules of Procedure governing inspection inquiries ordered by Committee P do not apply in such cases. However, the organic law expressly states that conducting judicial inquiries may not jeopardise other activities carried out by the Investigation Department. Also, by fixing the number of investigators legally authorised to conduct inspection inquiries to at least half the number of staff within the Investigation Department, the legislature has made clear its intention to limit the judicial inquiries assigned to Committee P’s Investigation Department simply to those cases in which recourse to specially trained investigators is justified, within the boundaries of the express, specific tasks of Committee P.
CLEARLY DEFINED ACTION
To enable Committee P to perform its overall monitoring tasks in the same way as police forces implement the tasks required of them under the police function, the legislature offers Committee P a wide variety of ways in which to gain a comprehensive overall picture of the problems liable to arise within police forces. Accordingly, Committee P has at its disposal the various internal and external instruments described below.
INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO COMMITTEE P
Different intelligence sources enable Committee P to access information on indicators of possible substandard performance in police forces. These may be police corps, disciplinary authorities, the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police, the judicial authorities, or even individual officials with police powers themselves.
The following information is forwarded to Committee P:
Committee P is also informed whenever an inquiry or investigation is opened into a member of a police force[13].
Finally, members of police forces must produce an information report for the Director general of the Investigation Department whenever a report is received of a crime or an offence allegedly committed by an official with police powers[14].
In the interests of mutual information, cooperation and partnership, systems have been put in place to exchange information via protocols concluded with the federal police, the local police, and the General Inspectorate. Other agreements are currently being fleshed out with other players within the police system.
Committee P uses the information it collects in these ways to draw up its position and decisions, and to launch inspection and other inquiries, which are the source of the majority of its conclusions and recommendations.
COMMITTEE P’S INQUIRIES
Opening an inquiry
Committee P or, in some cases, its Investigation Department, may open an inquiry at any time.
Committee P may decide to intervene:
The Investigation Department may act:
Subsequent inquiries into complaints and reports of police misconduct
Committee P deals with complaints and reports of police misconduct it receives with respect to operation, response, action or inaction of police forces and their members.
Any citizen directly affected by police action may lodge a complaint or report of police misconduct, or pass on any information to Committee P. Any official with police powers may lodge a complaint or report of police misconduct without requesting authorisation from their commanders or superior officers.
In certain special instances, if the citizen expressly wishes, Committee P can guarantee his or her anonymity and is bound to take measures to ensure that this is done. In such cases, the person’s identity may be revealed only within the Investigation Department or Committee P and, in exceptional cases, to the judicial authorities.
Although any individual, or, indeed, any official with police powers, may lodge a complaint regarding the activities of or methods used by police forces without any crime having been committed, it is important to emphasise that Committee P does not, in principle, act as a mediator.
Its primary task is not to rule on any misconduct by a specific individual within police forces or to systematically investigate all such complaints, but rather to look into the problem and establish whether such complaints stem from a shortcoming or failure within the police system.
Accordingly, by dealing with some complaints directly and rigorously analysing all the circumstances surrounding them, Committee P’s task is to draw up recommendations and propose measures to remedy recurring shortcomings and failures.
The mechanisms for inspecting other monitoring bodies, transferring authority to deal with certain complaints and reports of police misconduct, and the possibility of a second investigation by Committee P, as described above, all form part of this role.
Inspection and monitoring inquiries
Committee P classifies its inspection inquiries into four categories depending on the nature of the inquiry and the purpose it aims to serve.
Special attention is also paid to monitoring inquiries, since any inspection not subsequently monitored would be ineffectual.
“Quick scans”
In addition to inspection inquires, Committee P has also developed moni toring instruments known as ‘quickscans’, which were introduced in response to the need for a checklist of specific points to be used when monitoring situations that do not warrant a more in-depth inspection inquiry.
These instruments provide a rapid or preliminary assessment of any given police corps, enable comparisons to be drawn between different corps, and allow for a sort of ‘preliminary inquiry’ which can be used to determine whether or not a more detailed investigation is required. It is mainly these types of inquiry, together with definitions of stages and levels of development, that enable Committee P to gain a clearer picture of progress made in implementing the law on the police function[15] and the law on the integrated police force[16].
Investigation methods
Within the limits of their specific remit and the framework of the rules governing preliminary inquiries and pre-trial investigations Committee P and its Investigation Department have a number of tools available when conducting investigations.
Without prejudice to legal provisions governing immunity and the attachment of privilege, Committee P and the Investigation Department give a hearing to any person whose testimony is considered essential. Members of the police forces must respond to any written summons received; they may give evidence in connection with facts covered by professional secrecy.
The chairman of Committee P may have members of police forces called as witnesses via bailiffs. After swearing an oath, members of the police force are required to give evidence; if they fail to do so, they are subject to criminal proceedings. They have an obligation to disclose to Committee P any secret information to which they may be privy, except information pertaining to a judicial inquiry or investigation under way. If a member of a police force feels he must not disclose any secret information to which he may be privy for to do so would endanger another individual, the matter is referred to the chairman of Committee P who rules on it.
Committee P and the Investigation Department may ask to be assisted by experts and interpreters.
The Investigation Department is competent to conduct inquiries in places where the members of a police force under Article 3 of the organic law work and may confiscate any objects and documents that may be useful for the inquiry. They may request assistance from the police.
Committee P and the Director General of the Investigation Department may also impose binding time limits on police forces or their members to whom they refer matters as part of carrying out their tasks.
Justification and notification of inquiries
Committee P generally issues recommendations at the end of an inquiry. It may also decide to close a case relating to a complaint or report of police misconduct (temporarily or permanently), or not to act on it at all. This is primarily the case:
The decision to close a case or not to act on it must be justified and the complainant or denouncer notified accordingly. Committee P also reports the findings of the inquiry to the police force(s) concerned.
Reports fully or partly made public
A general or special report is drawn up in connection with each inspection. That report is then submitted to the Chamber of Representatives or the Senate.
The report sets out in general terms the investigation or checks carried out, and contains conclusions concerning texts, activities or methods of a kind likely to jeopardise respect for citizens’ constitutional rights and civil liberties, or the coordination and efficiency of the police forces.
Where the inquiry has been requested by the competent minister or authority, he/it is also sent a copy of the report.
This report is confidential until it has been transmitted to the Chamber of Representatives.
The competent minister or authority may also be informed by way of a general or special report after a complaint or complaints/report or reports of police misconduct are lodged.
The competent minister or authority may arrange a discussion with Committee P regarding an investigation report. Committee P may organise such a discussion on its own initiative. Within a reasonable time period, the competent minister or authority informs Committee P how it intends to follow up the conclusions reached.
Once the opinion has been issued by the competent minister or authority, Committee P may decide to make public all or part of its reports and conclusions by whichever ways and means it deems fit, in accordance with its rules of internal procedure.
EXTERNAL MONITORING OF POLICE FORCES
AN INSTRUMENT FOR LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
The role of Committee P is inextricably linked with the principle of separation of powers: Committee P serves the legislative authority to assist it in its task of monitoring the executive authority bestowed upon it by the Constitution.
Therefore, it acts as an external institution, both with regard to the executive authority and to the police forces that are answerable to the latter.
This special external monitoring role is one aspect that sets Committee P apart from the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police and special internal monitoring services.
The latter are essentially bodies that are answerable to the executive authority, incorporated into the very structure of police forces and therefore responsible for internal monitoring of said forces. This special feature makes Committee P the only comprehensive external body responsible for monitoring the way in which police forces operate and, moreover, the only autonomous and inde-pendent such body.
A Standing Committee – Special committee charged with providing parliamentary
support for Committee P – has been set up within the Chamber of Representatives
to monitor Committee P.
This committee meets with Committee P at least once every quarter. It may make
recommendations on the way Committee P operates in view of the organic law and
Committee P’s Internal Rules of Procedure.
The way in which both members and the clerk of Committee P are appointed (by the Chamber of Representatives, which may also dismiss them) clearly establishes its independence, neutrality and exteriority with respect to other forms of monitoring and inspection.
Before taking office, members of Committee P and its clerk must swear an oath before the Speaker of the Chamber of Representatives.
Committee P submits a special report on each inspection to the Chamber of Representatives. It must also report to the Chamber of Representatives and the Senate in the following instances:
COLLABORATING WITH OTHER MONITORING AUTHORITIES
Committee P’s monitoring and checks co-exist with other forms of monitoring by the executive and judicial authorities, whether by the judiciary or superior officers, and are conducted as specialised operations or subsidiary to the latter.
Committee P therefore consults the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police as well as the internal inspection bodies when conducting its legal police force monitoring missions.
It also cooperates very productively with the offices of the ministers of Justice and the Interior in investigating the areas in which collaboration agreements and exchange of information could or should be instituted, and with the board of public prosecutors and the board of state prosecutors on correct practical application of Articles 14, 14bis and 26 of the organic law.
Committee P also maintains close contacts with its counterpart responsible for monitoring the intelligence services, Committee I. The two standing committees exchange information on their activities and forward their respective reports and conclusions to each other. In addition to their numerous informal contacts, the two committees hold joint meetings at least twice a year during which they exchange further information. At these meetings, they jointly perform their tasks focussing both on police forces and the intelligence services.
Committee P also monitors international police cooperation, in particular the activities of Europol and Interpol forces.
WORKING IN CONTACT AND PARTNERSHIP WITH VARIOUS OTHER PARTIES AND PLAYERS
Committee P fosters a whole host of very fruitful contacts with both national and international organisations and associations such as the Council of Europe, the Disciplinary Board, the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism, the Commission for the Protection of Privacy (Commission pour la protection de la vie privée), the federal ombudsmen and so on, with scientific bodies and institutions and non-governmental organisations (such as IACOLE[22], Intercenter, ICAC[23], MRAX-BRAX[24], the Human Rights League (LDH), Amnesty International etc.), and with specific departments of Belgian universities. These contacts are regularly reinforced by productive working meetings.
In December 2001, Committee P launched a forum bringing together many of the
monitoring, surveillance and inspection bodies for police forces in the Member
States of the European Union, with a view both to understanding how the various
forces operate, and to discussing the operation of and collaboration between
different forces and developing police cooperation on European matters.
Committee P acts as the secretariat for this specialist forum that has been
organised every year from then onwards.
TOWARDS OPTIMUM COOPERATION BETWEEN EXTERNAL MONITORING, THE GENERAL INSPECTORATE, AND INTERNAL POLICE MONITORING SERVICES
Over the past few years, Committee P and its Investigation Department have been faced with a massive rise in the number of complaints and individual reports of police misconduct referred to it, and there is no doubt that the impact of dealing with these complaints and reports alone on Committee P’s workload has been considerable. The legislature has expressly invited Committee P to refocus its activities on its key missions and duties: safeguarding citizens’ constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms, and coordinating and ensuring the efficiency of police forces.
In this context, Committee P has developed new ways of working alongside and cooperating with the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police and internal inspection services.
Committee P monitoring of other inspection bodies[25]
As mentioned above, Committee P does not, in principle, act as a mediator. Although any citizen directly involved in a police response may approach Committee P at any time, under the general system, cases are referred in the first instance to the superior officer of the police force concerned, to the force’s internal monitoring service, or to the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police.
Monitoring by Committee P of individual complaints and reports of police misconduct must first take the form of marginal checks as to the way in which the complaints have been handled by the police forces in question, their internal monitoring services or, where appropriate, the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police.
To ensure that it conducts its tasks efficiently, Committee P should automatically receive notification of all complaints lodged against police forces that are handled at a different level (specifically, by the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police and by forces’ internal monitoring services). This step, which was introduced in 2001, aims to ensure due and detailed investigation of complaints and reports of police misconduct. Committee P is keen to encourage the application and use of a number of criteria, rules, and standards in this area and ensures that they are adhered to in order to maintain strict management of complaints and reports of police misconduct.
Reffering specific complaints and reports of police misconduct[26]
In cases where it feels that the details outlined in the complaint or report of police misconduct do not stem either from organisational shortcomings or from failures, negligence, or gross misconduct on the part of an individual officer, Committee P may decide to refer the complaint or report of police misconduct to the commissioner of the federal police, the local police corps commander, or to the chief of other police forces under the terms of Article 3 of the organic law, as appropriate.
In the same way, to avoid a complaint being handled simultaneously by the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police and by Committee P’s Investigation Department, and provided that the individual who lodged the complaint or report of police misconduct has not expressly requested that Committee P become involved, Committee P may decide not to follow up the particular complaint or report in question but to refer it exclusively to the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police.
Committee P must give reasons for its decision to refer a complaint or report of police misconduct and must forward them, in writing, to the individual who lodged the complaint or report.
In cases where Committee P does refer complaints or reports, the letter of notification to the individual who lodged the complaint or report must state that if they choose to contest the conclusions reached by inquiry (they will be informed of these findings when the inquiry is closed), they may ask Committee P to re-open their complaint or report.
When an inquiry is closed, the police force to which it was referred notifies Committee P of its conclusions and the measures it has taken.
… with the opportunity of a reinvestigation by Committee P[27]
If a citizen is not happy with the way in which the police force or General Inspectorate handles their complaint or report, he may ask for a re-investigation by Committee P.
This is not strictly an appeal, but rather a review on the basis of additional information which Committee P may request from the police force in question or from the General Inspectorate in order to draw a conclusion as to the way in which the complaint or report was handled.
Committee P therefore has the final say as to whether complaints, including those handled by a police force’s internal monitoring service or the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police, have been dealt with satisfactorily.
LISTENING TO CITIZENS, OFFICIALS WITH POLICE POWERS, AUTHORITIES, ETC.
AN ACCURATE PICTURE OF POLICE ACTIVITIES AND OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAW ON THE POLICE FUNCTION AND THE LAW ON THE INTEGRATED POLICE FORCE
In order that Parliament and the police authorities shoulder their responsibilities in the matter, Committee P must be able to acquire as reliable, relevant and complete a picture as possible of police activities and the associated problems.
Committee P is there to listen to citizens, Parliament, the police authorities and officers. It attaches great importance to everything and anything that might further improve the efficient running of the police service in today’s democratic society. One of its other main concerns is to improve and consolidate the positive aspects of the workings of the police forces.
THE NEED FOR NEUTRALITY, OBJECTIVITY AND TRANSPARENCY
The prime objective of Committee P is to carry out its duties totally objectively, neutrally and transparently vis-à-vis Parliament, officials with police powers, ministers, other competent authorities and citizens.
In this context, any intervention on its part, including inquiries and inspections, must be consistent with a democratic approach, characterised by respect for the constitutional rights and civil liberties of all individuals.
CONSTANTLY STRIVING FOR QUALITY
Committee P can only do its job if all the parties concerned fully assume their responsibilities, in accordance with the provisions of the organic law and the obligations arising therefrom, in particular in terms of automatic notification of certain information.
It is this commitment and effort that will enable Committee P, along with all the other actors concerned and under the aegis of the democratically elected representatives of civil society, to guarantee and contribute toward the establishment of a high-quality police service that performs to the satisfaction of all citizens, and which takes on its responsibilities in ensuring full, transparent and democratic implementation of the police function as set out in the law on the police function and the law on the integrated police force.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
For more information please visit the Committee P website (www.comitep.be) where annual reports are available.