Source: United Nations – Geneva
The Committee on Enforced Disappearances today reviewed a report containing additional information submitted by Belgium under article 29 (4) of the Convention. Committee Experts commended the State party’s commitment to human rights, while raising questions on foreign unaccompanied minors and illegal international adoptions.
Matar Diop, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Belgium, commended the State party’s commitment and welcomed the important delegation, which demonstrated Belgium’s commitment to human rights and cooperation with the United Nations human rights bodies.
Barbara Lochbihler, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Belgium, askedwhat measures had been implemented by the State party to gather complex and disaggregated statistics relating to unaccompanied foreign minors? What measures did the State party intend to adopt to search for and investigate unaccompanied foreign minors? Could an update on current legislation relating to unaccompanied minors be provided?
A Committee Expert said a number of measures had been adopted to support persons who felt they had been victims of illegal international adoption who were seeking to establish their origin. What form did the support take and what was its scope? Had these assistance measures been extended across the country, not just the Flemish community? Was the State party considering establishing a commission of inquiry which would shed light on the practice of illegal international adoptions? Would Belgium introduce a comprehensive prohibition on international adoptions at the national level?
The delegation said Belgium did not have specific statistics on unaccompanied foreign minors. The breakdown of statistics was a concern for Belgian authorities. There had been three consecutive projects conducted since 2021 aimed at improving data collection in Belgium. There had been a memo from the College of Prosecutors in searching for missing persons, which set out that any disappearance of foreign unaccompanied minors warranted the heightened interest of all services of the police. The disappearance of foreign unaccompanied minors was always considered worrying.
The delegation said the former Minister of Justice had encouraged cooperation between the stakeholders involved in investigating illegal international adoptions. In May 2024, the Government made a statement before the House of Representatives acknowledging problematic and illegal adoptions had occurred in Belgium between 1950 and today, and that those affected by the adoptions should be considered as victims. Other recent measures had been taken to further implement the resolution of the Chamber adopted in 2022 dedicated to cases of illegal adoptions in Belgium.
Introducing the report, Steven Limbourg, General Advisor, Director of the Criminal Law Direction, Federal Public Service Justice of Belgium, said that at the federal level, Belgium had taken advantage of the drafting of its new Penal Code in 2024 to update and include new provisions that took account of enforced disappearance. The offences carried all the consequences required by the Convention, as well as provisions relating to mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
In concluding remarks, Olivier De Frouville, Committee Chair, thanked Belgium for the constructive dialogue and their answers. Following the dialogue, the Committee would prepare concluding observations and propose recommendations, and from there it would then be decided how to continue the interaction with the State party.
Christophe Payot, Permanent Representative of Belgium to the United Nations Office at Geneva and head of the delegation, expressed sincere thanks to all Committee members for the constructive and enriching dialogue. It was recognised that enforced disappearance may not have the same scope in all States parties, however, Belgium believed the Convention was vital for combatting impunity. The State looked forward to the Committee’s concluding observations.
The delegation of Belgium consisted of representatives of the Federal Public Service Justice; the federal police; the French community of Belgium; the Flemish Government; and the Permanent Mission of Belgium to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
All the documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage. Webcasts of the meetings of the session can be found here, and meetings summaries can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. on Monday, 24 March, to begin its consideration of the initial report of Malta (CED/C/MLT/1).
Report
The Committee has before it the report containing additional information submitted by Belgium under article 29 (4) of the Convention (CED/C/BEL/Al/1).
Presentation of Report
CHRISTOPHE PAYOT, Permanent Representative of Belgium to the United Nations Office at Geneva and head of the delegation, said due to Belgium’s unique federal structure, the implementation of the Convention fell under the jurisdiction of several governments. Belgium promoted the ratification of the Convention to States that had not yet ratified it, and during the fourth cycle of the Universal Periodic Review, it had made 50 interventions in this regard. Belgium had also actively participated in and made commitments at the First World Congress on Enforced Disappearances held last January in Geneva. Mr. Payot then introduced the delegation, illustrating the plurality of bodies responsible for the implementation of the Convention.
STEVEN LIMBOURG, General Advisor, Director of the Criminal Law Direction, Federal Public Service Justice of Belgium, expressed appreciation to the Committee for its tireless work in the fight against enforced disappearances. At the federal level, Belgium had taken advantage of the drafting of its new Penal Code in 2024 to update and include new provisions that took account of enforced disappearance. Enforced disappearance that did not constitute a crime against humanity was now recognised as a stand-alone offence, punishable by a level six penalty, the same level as that for torture. Enforced disappearance constituting a crime against humanity also remained a free-standing offence, punishable by a sentence of level eight, the most serious level, which included life imprisonment or treatment under deprivation of liberty for 18 to 20 years. The offences carried all the consequences required by the Convention, as well as provisions relating to mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
With regard to deprivation of liberty, the federal police had developed an electronic register, which was currently in the testing phase. Regarding the disappearances of unaccompanied foreign minors, a 2022 circular from the Prosecutor General outlined that they should be subject to increased vigilance by all the services concerned. In 2023, a working group comprised of federal and federated levels as well as representatives of civil society, published a practical guide on the disappearances of unaccompanied minors. The handbook was available to all relevant departments and was actively used by the staff and services concerned, including community youth aid organizations and the integrated police.
Belgium had also taken measures to prevent illegal intercountry adoptions. At the federal level, the new Penal Code included the offences relating to fraudulent adoption, adding rules on punishable participation that made it possible to punish persons who participated in the offence of illegal adoption without being intermediaries. The new Criminal Code also expressly stated illegal adoption as a possible form of trafficking in human beings. In addition, all federal public services had started to implement a resolution of the Chamber adopted in 2022 dedicated to cases of illegal adoptions in Belgium.
The Flemish Government had taken various political measures to adapt its policy and operation in the field of intercountry adoption, in particular through a reform of its legal framework. The new 2024 intercountry adoption decree provided for stricter control of adoptions in the best interests of the child, as well as guidelines and criteria on the screening of collaborations in countries of origin, making ratification of the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption a key criterion. Similarly, in the French Community, the decree on adoption was amended in 2020 with the aim of authorising collaboration only with countries that had ratified the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption.
On the issue of the segregation suffered by the Métis during the period of Belgian colonisation in Africa, at the federal level, measures had been taken to respond to the various demands expressed in the “Métis” resolution, adopted by the Chamber in 2018. These included a procedure to remedy the absence of birth certificates, support in the identification of biological parents, and declassification of archives and access to them with a view to reuniting families separated under duress. In April 2024, a symposium for a delegation of mixed-race people from the Belgian colonisation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo was organised in Brussels, providing an opportunity to take stock of the measures taken by the Federal Government to implement the Métis resolution and to give participants the opportunity to clarify their questions and expectations towards Belgium. Mr. Limbourg expressed hope that the dialogue would indeed be most constructive.
Questions by Committee Experts
MATAR DIOP, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Belgium, said this dialogue followed on from the dialogue held with Belgium in 2014. Mr. Diop commended the State party’s commitment and welcomed the important delegation, which demonstrated Belgium’s commitment to human rights and cooperation with the United Nations human rights bodies. The Committee took note of the new Criminal Code adopted in 2024 and commended this legislative amendment. Why were mitigating circumstances granted to a person for holding someone for less than five days? Did there need to be physical impacts of torture for it to be taken into account? Could psychological torture be taken into account?
The law of criminal procedure, which came into force in April 2024, adopted a statute of limitations for public prosecution that varied according to the length of the sentence incurred. How would the duration of the statute of limitations be determined before the offence was the subject of a trial? The establishment of a register of persons deprived of their liberty was a major recommendation of the Committee in its 2014 concluding observations. What was the progress of this project? How were migrants registered? Had the existing system been developed? What were the existing legislative provisions regarding refoulement and pushbacks? Was training provided to staff working in the migration system in Belgium, at federal or at the federated entity level? Could information be provided on the existence and content of cooperation agreements with other States for the assistance of victims of enforced disappearance as well as the search, location and release of disappeared persons?
The Committee noted that assistance to victims of deliberate acts of violence was subject to the condition that the acts were at least partly committed in Belgium, and that an assessment was made on a case-by-case basis. What happened when the act spanned more than one country? Could information be provided when it came to extending the jurisdiction of the Commission? Could specific data be provided on the financial support provided to victims, including the number of cases handled, reparations envisaged, and the number of beneficiaries? Could relatives of victims benefit from the support of the Commission?
In December 2024, the Brussels Court of Appeal reversed a first instance judgment and declared as crimes against humanity the kidnappings and adoptions of five mixed-race females in the 1940s and 1950s in the Belgian Congo. These females had been abducted without their mothers’ consent and placed with an evangelical mission, later resulting in adoption. These adoptions had subsequently been considered illegal, and the females had been expected to receive compensatory amounts of around 50,000 euros. How did the State party plan to meet its obligations towards these five females? What measures did the State party plan to take to settle this case?
BARBARA LOCHBIHLER, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Belgium, thanked Belgium for following the work of the Committee actively and regularly. Could the delegation provide an update on the progress of creating an A status national human rights institution in full compliance with the Paris Principles? There had been some progress regarding the establishment of a national preventive mechanism, which could eventually allow for ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention. What was the estimated timeframe for this?
The Joint Statement on Illegal Intercountry Adoption outlined four key principles to prevent illegal intercountry adoptions. What measures had been taken to prevent and investigate illegal intercountry adoptions, taking into account those principles?
Were there any cases of victims, who suffered harm as a direct result of illegal intercountry adoption, and their right to reparation? Could the figures and cases of international illegal adoptions that had been reported by community centres be provided? According to information, initiatives taken in Belgium to study and recognise the scale and impact of illegal intercountry adoptions had led to little effect. Could the State party elaborate on these initiatives and what remained to be done to gain the knowledge for best prevention and compensation? What measures had been implemented by the State party to gather complex and disaggregated statistics relating to unaccompanied foreign minors? What measures did the State party intend to adopt to search for and investigate unaccompanied foreign minors? Could an update on current legislation relating to unaccompanied minors be provided? Did Belgium provide mutual legal assistance measures or cooperation and if so, with which countries?
Belgium had ratified the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (2000) and its Protocol against the smuggling of migrants by land, sea and air and to prevent, supress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children. What was the State’s experiences with the implementation of this Convention in Belgium and what lessons could be learned from that in the field of preventing migrants from becoming victims of enforced disappearance? How was the work of the Federal Migration Centre contributing particularly to the prevention of enforced disappearances in the context of migration?
A Committee Expert asked how many officials had been involved in corruption cases pertaining to international adoptions? Had criminal proceedings been brought forward?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said in the new Criminal Code adopted in 2024, enforced disappearance which did not constitute a crime against humanity was considered a standalone crime, placing it in the same subdivision as enforced disappearance which did constitute a crime against humanity. This was done to ensure that they entailed the same consequences, including the inditements for attempts and ensuring hierarchical superiorities were held to account, among others. This was done to ensure enforced disappearance was addressed in a multi-dimensional way and highlight the stigma of this crime. The provisions in the new Criminal Code were prepared by legal experts who took into account all recommendations made by the United Nations Working Group on Enforced Disappearance and from civil society. The purpose was not to create a secondary category of enforced disappearance which was less severe.
A register of persons deprived of liberty was a priority issue for Belgium. Discussions had been ongoing and there had been some delays and setbacks, but discussions were now back on track. The State was working to harmonise practices between the police, with a view to providing a register template to all police services which would meet international standards. An electronic register had been developed which was currently being tested.
Belgium did not have specific mutual agreements with other countries in regard to enforced disappearance. There were national cooperation agreements between the Belgian communities and there were definitions of victims, as well as their families. Belgian legislation did not cover acts committed abroad, but acts which continued in Belgium could be covered. If an act of violence occurred in several States, there needed to be a case-by-case analysis.
Emphasis was placed on migration when training people working directly with migrants, including customs officers or local police. Regarding the cases of the five mixed-race females, the Government had not yet taken any decision regarding the ruling of the court of appeal. The ruling was still being analysed.
The Belgian authorities recognised the need to have a consistent structure dealing with human rights and the need for a status A national human rights institution. The institute established in 2019 was an important step in this direction. The Subcommittee on Accreditation requested certain amendments which had been partially implemented establishing the institute. However, Belgium wished to see a consistent structure throughout the country. Total cooperation with various national human rights institutions was vital. A significant step was taken in April 2024 with the adoption of a law designating the federal institution for the promotion of human rights as the preventive mechanism at the federal level. It was only competent for places of deprivation of liberty which fell under the federal level, meaning ratification of the Optional Protocol was not yet possible. A mechanism needed to be developed to cover all places of deprivation of liberty in Belgium.
In recent years, the Flemish Government had taken measures to implement inter-country adoption operations. The Flemish Ministry for Family and Wellbeing set up a group to research previous best practices in intercountry adoptions. On the basis of the group’s recommendations, the Flemish Government reformed the legal framework for adoption. The most significant change included tighter control of adoption with the best interest of the child in mind. There was a long period of time for preserving records. In 2023, the Flemish Minister for Welfare called for all reports about irregularities in adoption to be flagged; there were over 200 irregularities reported, with 107 receiving an interview with the Flemish Centre for Adoption regarding questions or concerns about their case.
Belgium did not have specific statistics on unaccompanied foreign minors. The breakdown of statistics was a concern for Belgian authorities. There had been three consecutive projects conducted since 2021 aimed at improving data collection in Belgium. There had been a memo from the College of Prosecutors in searching for missing persons, which set out that any disappearance of foreign unaccompanied minors warranted the heightened interest of all services of the police. The disappearance of foreign unaccompanied minors was always considered worrying. If there was an indication that human trafficking could be involved, criminal policy directives needed to be enforced. Detention of foreign unaccompanied minors was prohibited through the aliens act. The police had an agreement with the guardianship service when there was a disappearance of a foreign unaccompanied minor. Foreign unaccompanied minors should be a priority for receiving a State guardian. Information was given to guardians so they could manage cases of enforced disappearance.
Questions by Committee Experts
MATAR DIOP, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Belgium, said it seemed as though the statute of limitations for enforced disappearance which was not considered a crime against humanity was 10 years. What was the statute of limitations for bringing criminal proceedings? Had the State lost an appeal before the court of cassation? Had a mechanism been established at the federal state level to allow potential victims of illegal adoptions to bring forth judicial proceedings or lodge a claim for reparations? Who had jurisdiction for what when it came to adoptions? Had the federal or federated entities imposed criminal penalties for involvement in illegal country adoptions?
BARBARA LOCHBIHLER, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Belgium, asked if there were mutual legal assistance measures of cooperation with countries regarding migrants? How were migrants in deprivation of liberty registered?
A Committee Expert said a number of measures had been adopted to support persons who felt they had been victims of illegal international adoption who were seeking to establish their origin. What form did the support take and what was its scope? Determining origins could require more support in cooperation with countries of origin. Did the assistance provided by Belgium encompass such measures? Had these assistance measures been extended across the country, not just the Flemish community? Was the State party considering establishing a commission of inquiry which would shed light on the practice of illegal international adoptions? Would Belgium introduce a comprehensive prohibition on international adoptions at the national level?
Another Expert asked how many court cases were underway which pertained to intercountry illegal adoptions? How many people had the State helped to recover their identity?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the statute of limitations was not applicable in both crimes of enforced disappearance, be they crimes against humanity or non-crimes against humanity. Psychological torture was always taken into account.
Regarding the decision pertaining to the five mixed-race females, this ruling was being analysed and there would possibly be an appeal filed with the court of cassation. The court had until early April to do so.
Belgian mutual legal assistance conventions were general in nature and there was not one specifically relating to the disappearance of migrants. The decision to remove a person or take them back to the border was suspended if this exposed them to a risk of refoulment.
When a person required support around an adoption, the Flemish Adoption Centre and other State entities conducted an interview with the victims and provided care and support following the interview. It ensured that follow up was given regarding personal files. The Centre aimed to collect as much as possible during the interview, finding out what steps had been taken and what needed to be done moving forward. The person involved was given the opportunity to participate in all stages. There was significant cooperation taking place at the communities and federal level. In the French community, the Central Community Authority was there to support those in their search.
The register on deprivation of liberty did not apply specifically to the registration of migrants, but rather it listed all deprivations of liberty carried out by the police services. The law on foreigners made it possible in certain situations for police services to detain a foreigner, not necessarily a migrant, who did not have identification documents with them.
The former Minister of Justice had encouraged cooperation between the stakeholders involved in investigating illegal international adoptions. In May 2024, the Government made a statement before the House of Representatives, acknowledging problematic and illegal adoptions had occurred in Belgium between 1950 and today, and that those affected by the adoptions should be considered as victims. Other recent measures had been taken to further implement the resolution of the Chamber adopted in 2022 dedicated to cases of illegal adoptions in Belgium.
Belgium’s whole legal framework had been enhanced in recent years to respond to events from the past.
If an act of enforced disappearance had been less than five days, this constituted a level four offence which was still serious, with consequences of up to 10 years in prison.
Closing Remarks
OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Chair, thanked Belgium for the constructive dialogue and their answers. Following a first constructive dialogue, it was up to the Committee to call for additional information, which was what had happened in this case. The Committee would then focus on certain subjects which it deemed necessary to raise again. Following the dialogue, the Committee would prepare concluding observations and propose recommendations, and from there it would then be decided how to continue the interaction with the State party.
CHRISTOPHE PAYOT, Permanent Representative of Belgium to the United Nations Office at Geneva and head of the delegation, expressed sincere thanks to all Committee members for the constructive and enriching dialogue. Belgium attached great importance to the treaty body system which played a fundamental role in promoting and protecting human rights in the country. Belgium would benefit from a more predictable reporting cycle with the treaty bodies which would lead to greater participation by State members. It was recognised that enforced disappearance may not have the same scope in all States parties, however, Belgium believed the Convention was vital for combatting impunity. The State looked forward to the Committee’s concluding observations.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CED25.006E
MIL OSI United Nations News –