1 501 complaints and denunciations were referred to Committee P between 1994 and 1 July 1999.

On 1 July 1999, 343 cases opened as the result of a complaint or denunciation were still on file as "open".

238 complaints were lodged or denunciations made between 1 July and 31 December.

Processing and taking final decisions with regard to these cases was one of the top priorities of Committee P, set up in November 1999. In an effort to guarantee the constant follow-up of such cases, Committee P decided to divide up the unresolved cases, both unresolved and new, between its members at its plenary sessions.

From now on, all cases would be managed centrally at administrative level. A new decision-making system was established, its main objective being to gain a more accurate overview of the workings of Committee P and thereby to obtain more precise statistics, enabling the Committee to form conclusions to help formulate recommendations to the various authorities for the improvement of the police forces concerned.

A procedure was introduced to guarantee the secure, consistent archiving of files once cases have been closed, especially when an individual has requested anonymity.

Between 26 November and the end of 1999, Committee P held 9 plenary sessions and closed 152 cases opened during the same period, plus 85 cases opened between 1994 and 30 June 1999, giving a total of 237 cases.

In addition, it reclassified a further 27 cases that were still listed as open when a decision regarding them had in fact already been taken, and reopened another 33 cases for various reasons in connection with the way in which they had been investigated, closed or registered, in particular for reason of incompleteness at the time a check was conducted.

These new procedures, and the fact that Committee P also intends to implement a policy of transparency vis-à-vis the complainant and the police officer or force which is the subject of such inquiries, must ultimately bring about greater transparency of its activities and more accountability.

The conclusions of such inquiries must not only highlight the errors committed or the way in which the system malfunctions, it must also state the causes behind such situations and draft proposals or recommendations designed to avoid any future repetitions and, above all, any violation of citizens’ rights and liberties or any gratuitous unpleasantness.

On the other hand, Committee P must also call attention to what is running smoothly when it discovers this to be the case, and inform Parliament, the authorities and the relevant police forces and officers when its investigations, inspections and appraisals give it reason to declare an absence of problems or malfunctions or otherwise enable it to confirm a healthy situation or one worth showcasing.

To accomplish its various duties in connection with processing complaints and dealing with denunciations, Committee P can also call on the internal police inspections bodies and, if necessary, the General Inspectorate of Federal and Local Police. The capacity of its Investigation Department can then be mainly devoted to its specific tasks and missions as expressly intended and provided for by the legislator.

Finally, Committee P notes that the number of denunciations registered "per week" has risen continually over the past year.

With the arrival of the present Committee P on 1 December 1999 an inventory of current inspections was drawn up covering the following:

Antwerp police; judicial police and SGAP/APSD (General Policing Support Department); Anderlecht police; Ninove police; Ghent police; the gathering of information and intelligence by police forces; domestic violence; Ingelmunster police; Mons Criminal Investigation Department, Molenbeek-Saint-Jean police; cooperation agreements between the Belgian and Turkish police; the REBEL case; Schaerbeek police; Ixelles police; STIB/MIVB (Brussels Intercommunal Transport Company); Hemiksem, Schelle and Niel police; Menen police; Eeklo police; Mechelen police; disciplinary cases within the gendarmerie; Quaregnon police; suicides within police forces; St. Josse police; video cassettes in the Dutroux affair, etc.

A joint inspection is still in progress with Committee I (Standing Committee Monitoring Intelligence Services) on the subject of security within the General Policing Support Department (SGAP/APSD).

Committee P was assigned to conduct 5 new inspections between 1 December 1999 and 1 January 2000: Courcelles police at the request of Mons Public Prosecutor; SGAP/APSD at the behest of Parliament’s supervisory committees; the 101 problem, at the request of the Ministry of the Interior; Marche-en-Famenne police at the request of Liège Public Prosecutor; and Thuin police, at the request of Mons Public Prosecutor.

The links between Committee P and Committee I have become much closer over the last few months, and cooperation between the two may be described as very satisfactory. The proof of this is the fact that, besides maintaining informal contacts, the two committees also held a combined meeting on 30 March 2000. The most important outcome of the meeting was an agreement that the work done in association with the joint check on security within the SGAP/APSD had to be resumed as soon as possible to see it through to completion at the earliest opportunity.

Contacts have been established with the various relevant authorities against the backdrop of the new-style Committee P. A first meeting with Parliament’s Supervisory Committee took place on 20 January 2000, followed by a second meeting on 14 July the same year. In the course of these meetings, the new main themes of policy that Committee P intended to follow were commented on and approved by the Supervisory Committee. Contact was also established with the Ministry of the Interior and with the Ministry of Justice, both mandating the Committee to carry out two inspections. Talks are also under way with the respective Secretaries-General at the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Justice with a view to ascertaining the areas in which agreements on co-operation and exchanges of information could, or indeed should, be concluded.

Working meetings were organized with representatives of the police forces in existence at the time (Central Office of the Gendarmerie, General Inspectorate of the Gendarmerie, Standing Committee on Local Policing, General Commissariat of the Criminal Investigation Department, etc.). The results of these talks have led, or will lead, to the establishment of directives governing cooperation.

Exploratory talks have also been held with the Public Prosecution Service and with the prosecutors themselves with a view to deciding the means of contact with Committee P and cooperation with the Investigation Department. Committee P also plans to conduct talks with the public prosecutors and, if necessary, with other departments of their service on the subject of the practical content of Articles 14 and 14bis of the Law of 18 July 1991 on the monitoring of police forces and intelligence services.

In a first inspection and discussion, the State Audit Office brought to Committee P’s attention the various notes and comments formulated by their institution in previous years in respect of which only piecemeal and unsatisfactory action had as yet been taken. During a meeting of 13 March 2000, Committee P unilaterally decided to take all necessary measures to ensure that the necessary decisions and provisions be made so as to comply with the directives of the State Audit Office before 30 June 2000.

At the request of the Presidents of the Senate and the Internal Affairs Committee, Committee P submitted a report to the IAC meeting of 28 March 2000. The report covered the situation with regard to police cooperation between Belgium and Austria following recent political developments in that country.

In the general context of police reform, Committee P was consulted in an expert capacity by the sub-group assigned to prepare for the establishment of the future General Inspectorate of Federal and Local Police. The Committee is represented by in a working party set up by the Prime Minister and led by Professor Brice De Ruyver.

As already explained during the meeting with the Parliament supervisory committees, the current Committee P is of the opinion that there is a need to keep track of international police cooperation and, in particular, the activities of the SGAP/APSD and within Europol. Whilst there are plans to establish links with that body over the next few months, we can reveal that Committee P has already established links with Interpol in Lyons and with the SGAP/APSD International Police Cooperation Division (CPI/IPS). With regard to these activities, and especially its inspection of SGAP/APSD activities, if conducted in a rather broader context, Committee P will monitor very closely the meeting police liaison officers and take part in various developments planned in such a framework. On this point, Committee P advocates establishing contact with the equivalent competent bodies monitoring police forces in other European countries on the understanding that we will initially be concentrating primarily on the Member States of the EU. Contact has already been established with the newly-formed inspectorate of the restructured police force of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg. Committee P held meetings with two British monitoring bodies in June 2000.

Investigation Department

This department, with a regular staff of 30, had 21 members when Committee P took up its duties, because the mandates of 9 of its members had to be renewed. All these members had requested an extension of their mandates. Committee P duly acceded after giving all nine members a thorough interview.

The current Committee P invited applications for the post of Chief of the Investigation Department; 11 candidates were shortlisted.

Committee P appointed Mr. Henri Berkmoes, who was sworn in on 31 May 2000.