Belgium: regular crisis and health crisis

A never-ending crisis.

Belgian prisons, already criticised for their dilapidation and incarceration conditions, have been closed off since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Actions like suspending family visits and halting activities, taken in an attempt to slow down the epidemic, have significant consequences for the prisoners’ daily lives.

Olivia Nederlandt is a research professor at the Université Libre de Bruxelles. As part of a special report on the COVID-19 crisis, she published an article called “Rights of Those Incarcerated During the Pandemic: When the Ordinary Crisis is Coupled with a Health Crisis.” Prison Insider sits down with her to ask a few questions.

Belgian authorities have implemented three types of measures concerning correctional facilities.

Prison Insider: What measures have been taken by the Belgian authorities to deal with the health crisis?

Olivia Nederlandt. Belgian authorities have implemented three types of measures concerning correctional facilities. There is an increased risk of spreading the coronavirus due to the prisons being overcrowded, but also due to the deplorable hygienic conditions in certain facilities. First and foremost, these measures aimed to reduce the prison population, particularly by suspending certain prison sentences which were five years or less and granting temporary or early release from prison.

Secondly, measures were taken to limit the number of people entering and leaving prisons.

This resulted in the suspension of visitation rights for friends and family as well as the suspension of short trips outside of prison (furloughs and prison leave) and prisoners being represented by their lawyers at some of their prison hearings.

Thirdly, sanitary measures have been adopted within prisons (preventive or medical isolation, mask wearing, grouping of prisoners in “bubbles” for visits or access to certain activities, etc.).

The measures aiming to reduce the prison population could be deemed insufficient.

PI. How would you evaluate these measures?

ON. It’s difficult to give a short answer to this question because it not only depends on the measures taken but also on the moment they were taken. Overall, the measures aiming to reduce the prison population could be deemed insufficient since the conditions for access to temporary and early release were very restrictive.

Moreover, they were only for those who had been convicted and not for those who had been remanded, even though the jails which hold the remanded prisoners are the ones that are the most dilapidated and overcrowded and carry the greatest risk of transmission. Faced with this emergency and unknown virus during the imposed lockdown at the beginning of the first wave, the reaction of the authorities is understandable. However, suspending visits, short prison outings which allowed prisoners to prepare for reintegration, and the prisoners’ transfers to their hearings seems disproportionate during the second wave. Less intrusive measures on the prisoners’ rights could have been adopted.

The prison population was not considered a priority population.

PI. Have any new measures been taken since your article was published?

ON. Most of the measures described in the report (published in March 2021) were extended following the arrival of the third wave, at the end of March 2021 (the measures from the first wave extended from mid-March to mid-June 2020 and the second wave from the end of October 2020 to March 31, 2021). All the measures laid out in the coronavirus law have, in fact, been extended until June 30, 2021, with temporary releases from prison (interruptions of the prison sentence) extended until July 15, 2021. To date, no legal text foresees extending them beyond these dates. No new specific measures have been adopted, other than the launch of the vaccination campaign in prisons. Initially, the Inter-Ministerial Conference (IMC) on Public Health decided to vaccinate only prison staff as a priority and not prisoners - this was strongly criticised and led Professor Tom Daems to recall the “less eligibility” principle. However, vaccination of the incarcerated people deemed “at risk” did not start until the end of May 2021. Therefore, the prison population was not considered a priority population - something which is open to criticism when one considers the increased risk of transmission in enclosed facilities.

Translated by Elise Martial, proofread by Selin Safi

The article

Nederlant (O), “Rights of Those Incarcerated During the Pandemic: When the Ordinary Crisis is Coupled with a Health Crisis.,” e-legal – Revue de droit et de criminologie de l’Université libre de Bruxelles, special edition COVID-19, 2021.
Available online.

Back to list