Committee on Enforced Disappearances

Twenty-eighth session

Summary record of the 522nd meeting*

Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva, on Monday, 24 March 2025, at 10 a.m.

Chair:Mr. de Frouville

Contents

Consideration of reports of States Parties under article 29 (1) and additional information under article 29 (4) of the Convention (continued)

Additional information submitted by Belgium under article 29 (4) of the Convention

The meeting was called to order at 10 a.m.

Consideration of reports of States Parties under article 29 (1) and additional information under article 29 (4) of the Convention (continued)

Additional information submitted by Belgium under article 29 (4) of the Convention (CED/C/BEL/AI/1; CED/C/BEL/Q/AI/1)

At the invitation of the Chair, the delegation of Belgium joined the meeting.

A representative of Belgium, recalling that the country’s unique federal structure meant that the implementation of the Convention fell to several levels of government, said that civil society had been involved in preparing responses to the list of priority themes. Belgium was a long-standing supporter of the treaty bodies and cooperated actively with them. It encouraged other States to ratify the Convention and, during the fourth cycle of the universal periodic review, had made 50 recommendations in that regard. It had also been an active participant in the first World Congress on Enforced Disappearances, held in Geneva in January 2025.

A representative of Belgium said that, at the federal level, the Government had taken advantage of the drafting of the new Criminal Code, which had been adopted and would come into force on 8 April 2026, to update or add provisions specifically related to enforced disappearances. For example, enforced disappearance that did not amount to a crime against humanity had been made an autonomous offence that carried the same level of penalty as the offence of torture, while the autonomous offence of enforced disappearance amounting to a crime against humanity carried the harshest level of penalty, which could include life imprisonment or mandated treatment in a closed facility for 18 to 20 years. The Code provided for both mitigating and aggravating circumstances for those offences and reflected the multidimensional nature of enforced disappearance.

In addition, an electronic register of deprivation of liberty was being trialled and would be made available to the integrated police force in due course. In a 2022 circular, the Belgian College of Prosecutors General had instructed all relevant departments to pay closer attention to disappearances of unaccompanied foreign minors, and a working group consisting of representatives of federal and federated institutions, as well as of civil society, had developed a practical guide on such disappearances, based throughout on the principle of the best interests of the child, and distributed it to all relevant bodies, including community-based youth associations.

Efforts had also been made to prevent illegal international adoptions. At the federal level, for instance, the new Criminal Code expressly defined illegal adoption as a form of human trafficking and included rules enabling the authorities to punish individuals who were involved in illegal adoptions other than as intermediaries. Furthermore, legislative measures had been taken to ensure that victims of illegal adoption did not experience legal problems with regard to nationality and adoption review or name change procedures. The Flemish Community had revised its legal framework on international adoption to set up stricter controls and define criteria for establishing collaboration with countries of origin, notably the requirement that the country should be a party to the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in respect of Intercountry Adoption. The French Community had introduced the same requirement in 2020.

Concerning the segregation of Métis persons – persons of mixed race, born of an African mother and a Belgian father – during the Belgian colonial period in Africa, the federal Government had established a procedure to compensate for the lack of birth certificates, assist in the identification of biological parents and declassify and enable access to archives, including those of religious authorities, with a view to family reunification. A symposium for Métis persons from the Democratic Republic of the Congo had been organized in Brussels in April 2024. The scope of the Ancestry Centre of the Flemish Community included Métis persons who had arrived in Belgium between 1908 and 1960, whether as adoptees or not, and the Community Central Authority of the French Community provided assistance to such adopted persons in researching their origins.

Mr. Diop (Country Rapporteur), commending the State Party for its commitment to the reporting process and its attachment to human rights values, said that the Committee welcomed the adoption of the new Criminal Code. He noted, however, that the Code stipulated that, if the person responsible for a disappearance voluntarily released the victim within five days, the penalty was less harsh. This created two types of enforced disappearance based on duration, even though the acts committed in both scenarios were equally unlawful. It would be helpful to know whether psychological torture was considered an aggravating circumstance of the offence of enforced disappearance in the same way as physical torture was, what the statute of limitations was for the offence and, if the statute of limitations was dependent on the severity of the penalty incurred, how it could be determined prior to judicial proceedings, especially in cases that might involve mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

He would welcome an update on the bill on the adoption of a royal decree on registers of persons deprived liberty and on the measures taken for the registration of detained migrants. He would also welcome information on how the principle of non-refoulement was dealt with in domestic legislation and on the training on the Convention provided to migration officials at the federal and federated entity levels.

He would be interested to hear about any cooperation agreements that the State Party had entered into with other countries regarding assistance for victims of enforced disappearance, including assistance in searching for, locating and securing the release of disappeared persons. He was also interested in hearing about any financial support provided to victims of acts of violence and about steps taken to expand that support to victims of acts committed outside the territory of the State Party. Did the State Party consider the relatives of victims also to be victims for the purpose of receiving assistance and support?

He had noted the case of five women who had been born in the Belgian Congo during the colonial period to black mothers and white fathers and had been taken from their mothers and later adopted in Belgium, in which the Court of Appeal of Brussels had found that the abductions amounted to crimes against humanity and rendered the adoptions illegal. In that regard, he wished to know why compensation had been awarded only for moral harm and not material harm and how the State Party intended to provide full reparation, within the meaning of article 24 of the Convention, to the plaintiffs and, potentially, to the reportedly many other victims across its former African colonies.

Ms. Lochbihler (Country Rapporteur) said that she would like to obtain an update on the progress made in creating a national human rights institution that would qualify for category A status under the Principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (Paris Principles). She would like to know what steps had been taken to establish a national preventive mechanism in preparation for ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the estimated time frame for that ratification and the time frame too for the decision to be made on an institutional arrangement to ensure that the national preventive mechanism was effective and adequately funded.

She would welcome further details on the measures taken to prevent and investigate illegal intercountry adoptions, on cases where victims had suffered harm as a direct result of such adoptions and their right to reparation, and on cases of illegal intercountry adoptions reported by community centres for minors. She would also be interested in learning more about the initiatives implemented in Belgium to assess the scale and impact of illegal intercountry adoptions, as well as planned measures to improve prevention and compensation practices.

She would be grateful for further information on both existing and planned measures to collect disaggregated statistics on the disappearance of unaccompanied foreign minors; on the actions that would be taken to comply with the obligation to search for those minors and investigate their disappearance; on current legislation regarding the detention of minors; and on the legislative provisions and measures in place to ensure cooperation and information‑sharing among relevant stakeholders concerning such disappearances. She wondered what steps had been taken to implement international mutual legal assistance measures in proceedings related to the disappearances and to strengthen public awareness and prevent such cases.

It would be useful if the delegation could provide further details on the State Party’s experience of implementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, including any lessons learned, particularly in the area of preventing migrants from becoming victims of enforced disappearance. She wondered how the work of the Federal Migration Centre had contributed to the prevention of enforced disappearance in the context of migration.

Ms. Villa Quintana said that she would like to know how many officials had been involved in cases of corruption related to illegal intercountry adoptions and what concrete actions had been taken to address that issue. She also wished to know how the issue of corruption might affect investigations and cases involving both State agencies and private agencies, particularly those linked to trafficking in persons, smuggling of migrants and illegal intercountry adoptions.

The meeting was suspended at 10.50 a.m. and resumed at 11.10 a.m.

A representative of Belgium said that the new provisions on enforced disappearance not amounting to crimes against humanity had been placed in the same section as the provisions on enforced disappearance amounting to crimes against humanity to ensure that both offences carried the same legal consequences, including non-prescription, superior responsibility, criminalization of preparatory acts and attempts, and exclusion of justification defences, particularly that of the order of a superior.

The scale of penalties had been developed by a team of legal experts who had taken into account the recommendations of the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, as well as the Committee’s concluding observations and the recommendations of civil society. The purpose of the provisions concerning aggravating circumstances had been to encourage perpetrators to release the victim as quickly as possible, in line with the corresponding recommendation from the Working Group. The aggravating circumstances set out included torture, the vulnerability of the victim and death as a consequence of the offence.

A representative of Belgium said that the creation of a register of persons deprived of liberty was a priority, but it had faced several technical and practical delays. The draft royal decree implementing article 33 bis of the Police Functions Act had been ready since 2022 and was in the process of being formally approved. Data protection impact assessments were currently being conducted by the relevant police departments, and the next step would be to seek the opinion of the supervisory body for police information. The process of finalizing the royal decree had been put on hold by the Standing Committee on the Supervision of Police Services so that it could conduct monitoring investigations and determine whether certain elements of the decree should be amended.

A representative of Belgium said that the Government had not concluded any cooperation agreements specifically on assistance for victims of enforced disappearance, but measures to support such victims could be granted under existing mutual assistance and cooperation agreements.

Relatives of victims could receive support under cooperation agreements. Under the Flemish Cooperation Agreement, a “victim” was defined as any individual who had suffered harm directly caused by criminal acts or omissions, or a relative of such an individual. The definition extended to situations where harm was caused by events involving police or judicial intervention, even if those events did not violate criminal law. Furthermore, at the level of the French Community and under the Cooperation Agreement, the definition of “relatives” went beyond the European directive establishing minimum standards on victims’ rights to include those who had suffered harm that did not necessarily involve the victim’s death.

Assistance was provided to victims of acts of violence in cases where the offence had been committed at least partially in Belgium or had effects in Belgium, such as acts of violence committed abroad but continued in Belgium. For example, the law would cover the case of a person kidnapped in a neighbouring country and transported to Belgium. In cases where multiple countries had been involved in the commission of an act of violence, a case‑by‑case examination was carried out to determine whether the victim should receive compensation.

A representative of Belgium said that the issue of training for State officials on the eradication and prevention of enforced disappearance had been addressed in the country’s 2013, 2014 and 2021 submissions to the Committee. The Government provided training for those who came into direct contact with migrants, such as the border police, customs officers, railway police and Immigration Office staff.

The Government had not yet decided on the measures it would take in response to the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Brussels in the case of the five Métis women. The ruling was still being analysed by the Government. However, the measures adopted to implement the March 2018 parliamentary resolution, which addressed the historical and ongoing issues related to the treatment of individuals of mixed-race heritage, served as a means of reparation. Those measures had included the delivery of a formal apology by the Prime Minister and the creation of a contact point at the Federal Public Service for Justice.

A representative of Belgium said that the Belgian authorities recognized the importance of having an effective independent institution, accredited with category A status under the Paris Principles, to ensure respect for human rights. To that end, a number of the recommendations made by the Subcommittee on Accreditation had been implemented following the adoption of the Act of 21 April 2024, amending the Act of 12 May 2019 establishing the Federal Institute for the protection and promotion of Human Rights. The Federal Coalition Agreement of 31 January 2025 provided for the conclusion of a cooperation agreement, not only to guarantee a clear division of responsibilities between the different human rights institutions but also to serve as a basis for the development of a national human rights institution accredited with category A status. The possibility of setting the Institute at interfederal level was a political matter that would be addressed during the present legislature.

A significant step towards ratification of the Optional Protocol had been taken in April 2024 with the adoption of a law designating the Institute as the national preventive mechanism. However, since the Institute was only competent for places of deprivation of liberty that fell under federal jurisdiction, ratification would only be possible once a mechanism had been developed to cover all places of deprivation of liberty.

A representative of Belgium said that, in 2023, the Flemish government had designated the Flemish Human Rights Institute as the preventive mechanism for places of deprivation of liberty under the jurisdiction of the Flemish Community. A decree would be drafted to formalize its role.

A representative of Belgium said that the Flemish Community had taken various measures regarding international adoption in recent years, including the establishment of a panel, composed of academics, members of civil society and a representative of the Office of the Children’s Rights Commissioner, to study past practices with a view to reforming current procedures and providing better safeguards for adopted children. On the basis of the panel’s recommendations, the Flemish government had adopted a new decree amending the legal framework on international adoption, published on 10 July 2024, which provided for stricter monitoring of adoptions, mandatory assistance by an authorized adoption service, without which adoption was no longer possible, and the examination of each case by the Flemish Centre for Adoption to ensure that appropriate conditions for adoption were met. The Flemish government had also developed guidelines and criteria for cooperation on international adoption, including verification that the countries of origin had ratified the Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in respect of Intercountry Adoption. The Flemish Region had reviewed its existing cooperation with those countries in 2023 and had made public the countries with which it had decided to cease its cooperation following a screening process. Adoptees and adoption services were given the opportunity to evaluate all the information.

In recent years, the Flemish Centre for Adoption had expanded its services to better respond to requests from adoptees, including the reporting of irregularities in adoption files. The Centre also organized personal interviews and helped adoptees to research their origins, working with reliable research partners in the countries concerned. Various organizations involved in assisting adopted people, including counselling services on parentage issues, received grants. They included the Steunpunt Adoptie (Adoption Support Centre) and the Afstammingscentrum (Ancestry Centre). Adoptees could turn to the “A-buddy” programme, which provided a platform for them to share experiences.

Lastly, as the recording of information was very important, the aforementioned decree provided for the indefinite retention of files on adopted children. At the end of 2023, following a government call for reports of complaints about adoption, the Flemish Centre for Adoption had received 203 individual reports, including 153 from adoptees, 43 from adoptive parents and 7 from biological parents. Between March and August 2024, 107 of the 200 people who had submitted reports had had a personal meeting with staff from the Centre to discuss their questions and concerns about their adoption procedure.

A representative of Belgium said that, although Belgium had data on disappearances in general, it did not have specific statistics on the disappearance of unaccompanied foreign minors. With regard to disaggregated statistics, the Government’s initial position had been that data should not be collected according to protected criteria. However, the authorities had found that, in certain situations, it was necessary to evaluate statistics according to those criteria. Consequently, three federally funded projects had been carried out since June 2020. The first project included data broken down by religious and philosophical beliefs, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, and sex characteristics. A second project, which had been finalized in June 2024, had extended the survey to three additional criteria: disability, physical characteristics and state of health. The third project, which would be finalized in December 2025, focused on age.

A representative of Belgium said that investigations of disappearances of unaccompanied foreign minors were carried out in accordance with a circular of the Belgian College of Prosecutors General, which provided that the disappearance of any child must be the subject of increased vigilance on the part of the services concerned, starting with the police services. The police conducted investigations into the disappearance of unaccompanied foreign minors under the direction of the competent judicial authorities. Such cases were treated as a cause for concern within the meaning of the circular, regardless of whether the disappearance was considered to be voluntary or enforced.

In accordance with the Act of 15 December 1980 on the entry, temporary and permanent residence and removal of aliens, it was prohibited to hold unaccompanied foreign minors in a detention centre or an accommodation facility.

A representative of Belgium, addressing the question that had been raised concerning the flow of information between authorities in the event of the disappearance of unaccompanied foreign children, said that the police had agreements with the Guardianship Service of the Federal Public Service for Justice. The federal police also maintained contacts with the Immigration Office for tasks related to illegal migration. Information exchange between the federal police and the Office was also provided for under the Policing Act, which required that any public service must report offences to the prosecutor’s office, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. The circular of 8 May 2015 relating to the report form for unaccompanied foreign minors and their care provided a definition of a minor, established a single report form and regulated cooperation between the community administrative authorities, the police services, the Immigration Office and the Guardianship Service. The disappearance of unaccompanied foreign minors was subject to a procedure provided for in a 2016 circular of the College of Prosecutors General. In view of the importance that the Office of the Secretary of State for Asylum and Migration attached to the issue, it had established a working group on disappearance, composed of representatives of the Immigration Office, the Guardianship Service and other relevant actors, which had published a practical guide to the disappearance of unaccompanied foreign minors in 2023 used by all relevant services, particularly community youth support organizations and the integrated police force. A round-table discussion on the guide had been organized in 2024, with the participation of all relevant stakeholders, and further such discussions were planned for 2025.

The Guardianship Service was developing a procedure to streamline the identification of minors and sought to ensure that vulnerable unaccompanied foreign minors were provided with a guardian as a matter of priority. Training in the handling of cases of enforced disappearance was also provided to guardians.

Under a 2018 joint financing agreement between the Federal Agency for the Reception of Asylum-Seekers and the French Community for the establishment of more places for such minors in the housing services, there were plans to increase the number of places available from 92 to 130. The new places were intended to offer the youngest and most vulnerable children more individualized care and supervision than the Agency’s reception centres.

Mr. Diop, noting that enforced disappearance that did not constitute a crime against humanity was an ordinary offence under Belgian law and that the statute of limitations depended on the category of the offence, said he would like to know what the true statute of limitations was for prosecutions to be brought in cases of enforced disappearance. He also wished to know whether there was a mechanism in place to allow for the five Métis women mentioned earlier to take legal action and receive compensation from the Government in accordance with the Brussels Court of Appeal judgment of December 2024, which had found that prosecution of the case was no longer subject to a period of limitation. It was not clear whether an appeal in cassation had already been lodged. Lastly, he would be grateful for clarification on which cases of adoption fell within the jurisdiction of the federated authorities and which within the jurisdiction of the federal authorities.

Ms. Lochbihler, noting that the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (2023) stated that cases of disappearance were often not reported because relatives and witnesses might not know about reporting mechanisms, faced language barriers and were often afraid of being detained or deported, said that she wished to know how Belgium envisaged facilitating such reporting. Further information on available mutual legal assistance would be welcome. She wondered whether the State party promoted international and regional cooperation and the exchange of information between States on the prevention, search and investigation of the disappearance of migrants and, if so, with which countries. She would also appreciate further details on the registration of migrants, including any areas where there was room for improvement of the system.

A representative of Belgium said that it was indeed the case that Belgian law provided for different statutes of limitations for public prosecution, depending on the nature of the offence. The terms of limitation mentioned applied to ordinary offences. However, in accordance with article 21 bis of the preliminary section of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there were no such periods of limitation for the prosecution of international crimes. As enforced disappearance fell under the category of international crimes, regardless of whether or not it constituted a crime against humanity, no statute of limitations applied.

With regard to the question raised earlier concerning psychological torture, article 112 of the new Criminal Code stated that torture consisted of deliberately inflicting severe pain or very serious and cruel physical or mental suffering on persons, particularly with the aim of obtaining information or a confession from them or a third party, punishing them or a third party, putting pressure on them or a third party, intimidating them or a third party, or for any discriminatory reason. That definition of torture was in full compliance with that set out in article 1 (1) of the Convention against Torture.

A representative of Belgium said that, while the mutual legal assistance agreements to which Belgium was party were not specific to cases involving the disappearance of migrants, they were generally broad and applied to various situations, including disappearances. The Immigration Office had a comprehensive database on which all migrants in Belgium who applied for a visa or any form of residence and persons intercepted who had been staying unlawfully in the country were registered. Alphanumeric data could be stored for up to 75 years. Biometric data, including fingerprints and facial recognition, were typically collected and retained for 10 years. Currently, registration was not always required for visa-exempt nationals who stayed for a short period of up to three months. However, that would change with the introduction of the Entry/Exit System, the system to be used by immigration authorities of the European Union to register entry and exit data of third-country nationals for a short stay in the Schengen area. Currently, those persons were checked at the border against the Schengen Information System, which included alerts for minors at risk of abduction.

The law on the rights of foreign nationals provided for the temporary postponement of expulsions where there was a risk of violating the principle of non-refoulement. That provision applied to cases of both direct and indirect refoulement.

A representative of Belgium said that the Flemish Centre for Adoption used the personal interviews that it conducted with persons seeking assistance to obtain information that could guide further investigations into the questions that those individuals raised. Representatives of other organizations were available to provide psychosocial support during the interviews if needed. The Centre followed up on requests such as those to consult case files or obtain DNA tests and reported, in writing, to the persons concerned on additional steps that they could take in their searches. The Centre entered into cooperation agreements with organizations in the countries concerned – with the consent of the persons in question – but not with the States themselves. The Centre monitored all international adoption proceedings and ensured that the files regarding the future adoptive parents reached the competent authorities in the country of origin.

A representative of Belgium said that, in the French Community, the Community Central Authority was responsible for handling requests from and providing assistance to adopted persons who were searching for their roots. To facilitate such searches, government‑approved adoption agencies had in 2020 introduced a form where, in connection with international adoptions, they recorded general information on the history of the adoption and their coordination with the State involved.

A representative of Belgium said that the register of persons deprived of liberty was not used for the systematic registration of migrants. Rather, it was used to record information on all persons deprived of their liberty by either the administrative or the criminal investigation police. The Police Functions Act required that all arrests must be recorded in a register. The electronic register being developed was still in the testing phase.

Under the law on foreign nationals, the police were authorized to place under administrative arrest any foreign nationals – not necessarily migrants – who were not carrying the identity documents required by law and to detain them for up to 24 hours. A record of such administrative arrests must be made in the register of persons deprived of liberty.

A representative of Belgium said that the expert network created by the Belgian College of Prosecutors General to address matters relating to illegal international adoptions had met with the adoption services of the federated entities in June 2024. Together, they had designated a point of contact within the Public Prosecutor’s Office for the reporting of cases and had agreed on the information that must accompany such reports. The consequences under federal criminal and civil law for the persons involved had also been explained.

In its resolution of 9 June 2022, the House of Representatives had acknowledged that fraud had occurred in international adoptions, unbeknown to the competent administrative authorities, and had apologized for the suffering caused. Similarly, the Prime Minister had, in a statement made on behalf of the Government before the House of Representatives on 8 May 2024, recognized that illegal adoptions had occurred in Belgium since 1950 and that the persons affected should be treated as victims.

The provisions of several federal laws adopted in 2023 and 2024 served to limit the negative consequences for victims by, for example, allowing persons whose adoptions had been revoked or annulled to keep their Belgian nationality; leaving the decision as to whether to pursue annulment proceedings to the victims in cases where they had reached adulthood; allowing courts to refuse, in the interests of the child, to grant annulments sought by the Public Prosecutor’s Office where the victim was a minor; and exempting victims from the payment of certain fees in name change proceedings.

A representative of Belgium said that any appeal against the December 2024 decision of the Brussels Appeal Court in the case of the five Métis women must be filed with the Court of Cassation by 22 April 2025.

Mr. Diop said that he wished to know how many cases involving illegal international adoptions were pending before the Belgian courts and whether any criminal or administrative penalties had been imposed on Belgian authorities, either at the federal or Community level, for their involvement in illegal adoptions.

Ms. Villa Quintana said that she would like to find out whether the State Party had received any extradition requests in connection with cases of illegal international adoptions, how many victims of such adoptions had recovered their identities and whether the State Party had helped them to do so. She wished to know why the State Party treated so-called short-term enforced disappearance as a less serious form of the offence, as the period of enforced disappearance did not alter its gravity.

A representative of Belgium said that, while the delegation did not have exact statistics regarding the number of cases, the information that it had provided regarding the 203 individuals who had come forward with questions or complaints regarding adoptions could perhaps provide an indication.

A representative of Belgium said that “short-term enforced disappearance” was not a term used by the State Party. The release of a victim of enforced disappearance within five days was a mitigating circumstance that reduced the associated penalty from a level 6 penalty to a level 4 penalty. However, the level 4 penalty was still quite severe by the standards of Belgian law and consisted of a term of imprisonment of 5 to 10 years or 4 to 6 years of medical care under a sentence of deprivation of liberty. The purpose of the mitigating circumstance was to encourage the cessation of the enforced disappearance.

A representative of Belgium, thanking the Committee members for their questions, said that he hoped that the delegation’s answers had made a positive contribution to the dialogue. However, the effort made by the delegation to respond to the Committee’s questions should not be interpreted as an acknowledgment that the concept of enforced disappearance was applicable to all the events referred to by the Committee.

Belgium viewed favourably the requirement under the Convention of a single report, rather than periodic reports. The aim of the Convention was narrower than that of other human rights treaties, and the prevalence of enforced disappearance depended greatly on a country’s specific situation. It was critical that the Committee should not, in applying the provisions of article 29 (4) of the Convention on requests for additional information, gradually introduce a periodic reporting procedure. He wished to reiterate the great importance that his country attached to the implementation of the Convention, an important tool in the fight against impunity.

The Chair said that he wished to assure the delegation that the Committee would be careful not to introduce a periodic reporting procedure and had, in fact, amended its rules of procedure the preceding year to establish additional safeguards against such a possibility. However, as part of its duty to monitor the implementation of the Convention, it did remain attentive to developments in States Parties.

The meeting rose at 12.55 p.m.