Horns, bells, still waters and deep grounds - on the treaties between Belgium and the United Arab Emirates
Recently, the extradition treaty between Belgium and Dubai - one of the emirates - was announced with many bells and whistles. Afterwards, the treaty has been in the news several more times, as Dubai authorities refused several requests for extradition, despite the brand new treaty. Meanwhile, no one has yet been extradited under the treaty, as far as we are aware.
Another treaty, concluded the same day and with the same emirates, received somewhat less media attention. However, it is this treaty that is likely to have the most far-reaching consequences for the individuals the Belgian authorities are so desperately trying to get back into Belgium. In other words, the saying "still waters, deep grounds" is very apt.
Therefore, to break the deafening silence regarding this "other" treaty, this contribution will focus only on the Agreement between the Kingdom of Belgium and the United Arab Emirates on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters.
Principles
Based on the treaty, there is an obligation in principle to provide legal assistance between Belgium and the United Arab Emirates. In other words, the two countries are obliged to assist each other during each other's criminal proceedings.
In addition, the Convention applies to any form of assistance during criminal proceedings, whether that assistance is to be provided by a judge or another judicial body (such as the District Attorney's Office).
However, this obligation does not involve carte blanche in for one country or the other. For example, Belgium will be able to refuse the request for assistance when Dubai is investigating a crime that is not a crime at all in Belgium. Or so Dubai will be obliged to refuse assistance when Belgium requests it during investigations of political or military crimes.
Furthermore, both countries are also bound to secrecy regarding the requests for aid they receive. This means that one country, at the request of the other, will conduct investigations on its own territory, without the knowledge of the persons located on the same territory.
Moreover, a refusal to aid is not possible on the basis of any banking secrecy alone. Belgium and the United Arab Emirates are thus obliged to share banking data with each other, regardless of whether banking secrecy would generally apply. However, other mandatory and less mandatory reasons for refusal continue to apply, even if bank information is involved.
Concerning specific forms of legal aid
All in all, "legal aid" is a fairly general term and includes various forms of assistance.
For some of these forms, concrete rules are included in the Convention. For example, special rules apply to inviting witnesses or experts, organizing a hearing in the country from which assistance is sought, transferring non-suspects to testify, conducting a search, seizing evidence, freezing accounts and searching for proceeds of crime.
Especially with regard to the latter two forms of legal assistance, there is a striking observation to be made. Indeed, Belgium and the United Arab Emirates are required to freeze accounts in their respective countries and to investigate the proceeds of crime only when one country has suspects That such revenues are in the other country.
Then again, when those proceeds are found, the country in which they are found is obliged to confiscate them.
Immunity
Finally, one more comment in connection with the questioning of persons, who voluntarily travel to Belgium or the United Arab Emirates to testify: they cannot be exposed to persecution or deprivation of liberty there. Or else: immunity is offered to them.
But this immunity is subject to certain conditions. The immunity only applies to crimes committed by the witness during the period preceding his or her trip to Belgium or one of the emirates. Therefore, if another crime is committed by the same witness after arrival in the country that requested the testimony, he or she is logically not immune from prosecution or deprivation of liberty.
Furthermore - and this is rather remarkable - immunity falls away completely if, 30 days after the witness is informed that his assistance is no longer needed, he is still in the country that had requested his testimony.
So, on the one hand, "clicking" is encouraged but the clickers must be careful if they are not to end up in the justice mill themselves.
Talk of still waters, deep grounds... Or perhaps the expression "speech is silver, silence is gold" is more appropriate in this case?
If you have specific questions about the treaties between Belgium and the United Arab Emirates or simply want more information about them, feel free to contact us at info@bannister.be or 03/369.28.00.
