1. In Belgium a juge d’instruction has to prepare a case for both the defence and the prosecution. He leads the judicial investigation, and does so with the help of the police. It is the duty of the research judge to gather evidence not only against (à charge) but also in favour (à décharge) of the suspect. The statutory position of a research judge is somewhat ambiguous, since he is at the same time an officer of the judicial police and a judge. He has to track down criminals and protect the victims against them, which makes it difficult for him to be impartial in this sense. On the other hand, a research judge does not have the powers of the judge(s) sitting to hear the case; he does not adjudicate cases and is in that sense not a typical member of the judiciary. He does not rule on the guilt of an accused, or on the punishment or degree of punishment, or on possible compensation for victims.
2. In Dutch referred to as wraking.
3. Published in 115 Journal des Tribunaux (1996) p. 670.
4. The judgment was upheld by the Cour de cassation some months later, on 11 December 1996, in civil proceedings.
5. ‘[In view of the fact] that the essential condition of impartiality of the research judge is his complete independence in regard to the parties, so that he does not expose himself to a suspicion of partiality with regard to his examination of the facts, whether it be in favour of the defence or the prosecution; [that] the research judge should not at any moment lose the ability to create in the minds of the parties or in the public opinion an appearance of impartiality; [that] no circumstance, however exceptional, might relieve him of this obligation.’