(3f) The Three Powers must be able to judge each other

Introduction

 A Slovakian man was taken from an airplane by police just before departure, he resisted, among other by hitting his head against a wall until he bled, so the police had to use force to keep the person under control.  Afterwards the person died.  A video of the event became public 2,5 years after the event happened.  Questions must be answered.

 The video also shows how a policewoman delivers the Hitler salute.  Doesn't that justify at least an immediate layoff and even a dismissal since Nazis have no place in the police?

Questions that need to be answered

 Why was the man aggressive or did he become violent when he was removed from the plane?  Did the officers misbehave or should it be better described what to do if someone opposes aggressively?  Indeed, sometimes people die and this needs to be investigated, especially if there were video footage although apparently those in higher positions were not aware of this as the current Minister of the Interior Pieter De Crem told the parliamentary Commission of Inquiry that is investigating the events after the video became public to determine what went wrong.

 After all, the investigation has been running for 2.5 years and the public prosecutor's office is not ashamed that what happened has still not been clarified, but states that Covid-19 stopped the investigation.  But now it also appears that an investigating judge refused to do a reconstruction until the images leaked.  Although, suddenly and even before the reconstruction takes place, the judiciary apparently finds that the police cannot be blamed.  In the Commission of Inquiry, Justice Minister Koen Geens (who apparently also remembers little) spoke in which he gave an "overview of the investigation - as far as he can, thus without undermining the secret of the investigation or violate medical secrecy", so, it will not be easy for the parliamentary inquiry to determine why the inquiry into the circumstances did not progress.

Déjà vu feeling

 Even the Dutroux affair was not serious enough to force serious changes to the judiciary.  Because, even now when politicians ask about the progress of judicial files when mistakes are made or procedures take too long so that facts threaten to become time-barred, politicians are accused of interfering with the judicial process which is of course not possible.  And it is not the first time that ministers have to resign or they are expected to do so for blunders of subordinates instead that subordinates are punished for mistakes they made such as the obligation to take extra courses and even dismissal in more serious cases.  Even when the subordinates of ministers are judges.  Indeed, the escape by Marc Dutroux after he overwhelmed his guard obliged two ministers to resign; sometimes it seems that when you want to get rid of a minister, subordinates need to make serious errors.  The three powers, ie executive, legislative and judiciary, must control each other to prevent corruption in one of the three powers and this to prevent all powers become corrupt.  Also the fourth power, ie the public, control organisations, journalists, ... are important to make any possible mismanagement public to prevent certain files "disappear". 

 By the way, recently a former politician (from 8'27'') still defended the decision of a higher court when it decided almost 25 years ago (during the Dutroux affair) to remove an investigating judge from the investigation for partiality because the investigating judge promised parents of kidnapped and murdered children at a memorial that he would thoroughly investigate the blunders that led to the horror because in Belgium investigations can go on for years in silence as no one is allowed to ask questions.  The result of this decision was popular anger and 300,000 people on the streets in the "White March" and afterwards a police reform as well as the creation of the "Missing Persons" cell.  Result: a better functioning police force but still a justice system that frustrates many people.

And then we don't mention the "Bende van Nijvel", and others. 

 The number two of the police is now temporarily taking a step back so that it can be investigated why he too was not informed, although Minister De Crem states that both his predecessor and the federal police top were aware of the facts, but they apparently didn't know about the existence of the video footage.  Should he not remain to investigate why they were not sufficiently informed although than his possible part in not providing all information may not be sufficiently thorough and independent investigated.  The head of the aviation police is transferred though not much is communicated about this.  An independent police and judiciary organising although linked to Parliament may be best placed to investigate what went wrong while the Commission of Inquiry can investigate how the flow of information should be better in future.  Also the attitude of the then Minister of the Interior Jan Jambon needs to be clarified, although he may not necessarily remember this incident and certainly not when he received incomplete data so it seemed not too bad while trust that the jurisdiction and police will investigate well.  And thus now Belgium has to answer to Slovakia, the country where the man came from, for not correctly providing all the information so as a result the country has no longer confidence in the Belgian investigation.

 So we come to the most important question: who was informed and how much was communicated?  Equally important: if it is correct that the higher hierarchies did not know about the video images and therefore had insufficient knowledge about the urgency of the facts (there was one death due to police intervention), who then didn't mention the video images until now (although everyone understands that normally there will be problems when a policewoman gives the Hitler salute)?  We now know that the deceased's wife decided to release these video footage as the investigation did not progress.  This is also strange since apparently someone is allowed to disclose evidence just like that, while normally the Belgian court is always talking about "the secret of the investigation".  Therefore, does someone feel remorse after something similar happened in America to George Floyd?  Or, does the political situation in Belgium have anything to do with this, as some suggest, involving intervention although it is already sufficiently complicated?  Whatever the reason for the accepted leak that was necessary to show errors, the whole situation that there is still no outcome in the investigation is unworthy of a democracy and even dangerous when even superiors don't know what is happening.

 Did higher authorities refuse to know more to protect subordinates?  This used to be possible, but nowadays it often means that the truth eventually emerges and careers are damaged and destroyed.

 Or did subordinates refuse to share sufficient information with higher authorities?  That is the willful withholding of important information so that a correct judgment cannot be formed, known as obstruction of justice and judicial process.

 Or are Belgian politicians afraid to ask the judiciary about the state of affairs because they are then accused of interfering in court cases, which can apparently lead to procedural errors and thus the termination of the investigation and acquittal.

How to reduce the occurrence of such facts?

 I lived in London and I also notice on American news channels how in those countries such video footage are not kept secret for years, but on the contrary are made public and fairly quickly after the facts and before trials, which means that much fewer errors can happen and processes have to take place faster.  Of course, irregularities also happen.

 In addition, politicians must be able to intervene when investigations take too long, not to release individuals, but to allow investigations to take place smoothly so that people do not live in uncertainty for years unless they are real criminals who can escape their punishment.  Politicians must even be able to remove judges from their office when they are incapable such as when they make serious procedural errors so that criminals are informed about investigations and this can result in the release of criminals or when they allow investigations drag on for too long.

 Procedural errors, for example, should not result in acquittal of criminals, but, depending on the seriousness of the errors, that judges can end up with blame and in the worst case dismissal, as in any normally functioning company or organization.  Obviously, this cannot be done lightly such as by a minister, but it should be able to do so by a sufficiently large majority of executive and legislative powers while the judiciary may defend itself.  And control organizations must exist that can propose measures for less serious errors, although courts can still handle the higher appeals and also deal with the worst cases.

 Further, legislative politicians have to legislate and ratify them by ballot while executive powers oversee the day-to-day functioning of the community according to those laws.  The judiciary should punish those who violate laws while they possibly should be able to voice objections against new laws but in the end the judiciary should not stop laws because that is misusing its power; the exception is that laws must be held against the Constitution because Constitutions can only be changed by a special majority.  

 That's why I think a democracy should have a second parliamentary chamber (often called a Senate, the usefulness of which is being questioned nowadays for being too expensive) that can ratify laws but possibly also send them back for a new reflection and vote in the first chamber.  This second chamber could partly (one third) consist of judges and lawyers who are appointed by their colleagues so that they can formulate any objections against new laws.  This way, the majority of judges should only deal with judging without interfering with democracy unless obvious mistakes happen against the Constitution, or they can enter politics.  These judges, in addition to a second reading of laws, can also exercise control over the judiciary along with the other parts of the Senate so that they can correct the judiciary and related such as the police if necessary when they don't function properly. 

 Another third can consist of people who have achieved something, either in science, literature, arts, but also professions such as healthcare professionals, firefighters, ...,  thus a reflection of society. 

 Finally, the last third should be elected representatives who are mainly interested in controlling the powers. 

 All but the elected representatives should only be able to exercise the position for a limited time to prevent abuse of power such as five times for two years so that new people can be constantly trained by the elderly although not too much so they bring in fresh ideas.  Elected representatives can stay as long as the population wants them, democracy decides.

 Little will remain hidden in the future.  In fact you wonder why there are not standard cameras in police stations that film such unusual cases and so everyone knows that video images must exist.  The facts also happened in an airport where normally cameras are available to record such incidents.  So now the whole police is put in a bad light as they seem to protect each other and/or don't inform (correctly) higher hierarchies while the public doesn't know the whole situation such as, why did the person behave in this strange way (although the Hitler salute ...).  That is why it is also important that at least those who perform security functions such as police, security and military personnel but possibly also others such as paramedics and firefighters wear body cameras so that one knows what happened from start to finish, not only for the benefit of civilians but also because then wearers can record situations that will exonerate them.

 But also, and again, the Belgian judiciary shows that it urgently needs to be thoroughly reformed because the processing of many important files is still too slow without them being held accountable on the grounds that justice is independent.  After the video was released, the judiciary did take action.  Because rapid action, and thus not the persistence of files, is important for the democracy and against the feeling of impunity. 

 Finally, politicians should stop not holding the justice system to account such as when it works too slowly to deal with facts or when the judiciary makes mistakes again, so that criminals sometimes can escape a punishment.  Or, will politicians continue to risk their careers for mistakes in the judiciary and, to a lesser extent, the police?  After all, ministers and top officials should not monitor every actions of the police and judiciary, they should be able to trust that they work correctly and more difficult cases are correctly reported with inclusion of all evidence, including videos, to higher hierarchies such as the top of the police, justice and ministers.

 In effect, it endangers democracy when certain persons are almost untouchable except in the worst cases such as when they commit murder or theft.

Conclusion

 Police work is not always easy, sometimes involving violence and can result in deaths.  However, this must be investigated quickly enough to see how things can be done better next time without immediately accusing the police, unless the investigation finds serious errors due to negligence.  Then superiors have to intervene. Body camera's are one way to gather evidence.

 Death cases should always be reported to the higher hierarchy with all evidence for investigation and follow-up.  Justice must also do this correctly.  Failure to do so is a serious mistake.  And if there are errors, actions must be taken to prevent they are repeated in future.

 Politicians should not influence an investigation in one direction or the other, but should be able to discuss slow progress and/or errors and in the worst cases impose sanctions, not done by one politician but by a majority in parliament that should also be able to refer a case to a Court of Justice.  This increases the chance that files will be handled correctly.  And a control body must be linked to parliament so that at least once a year the functioning of the police and judiciary is discussed and any measures to improve the services can be voted on.  Audits can be conducted by Parliament or external organisation to check whether the control body itself functions well.

This is my opinion that you don't have to agree with.