It was labeled as “the greatest lawyer of the Brussels Bar”. Certainly, he will have made an impression by being involved in some of the most significant trials in Belgian judicial history. But it’s not so much for that: “I was two meters one, I’ve shrunk, today I’m at ninety-nine. “
Since January 1, Georges-Henri Beauthier put away her toga in the closet, after 50 years at the bar. He remains an honorary lawyer. The man is best known for having defended Lætitia Delhez, one of the victims of Marc Dutroux. But the one who was for two years president of the League of Human Rights was also one of the specialists in the rights of foreigners. The drama of Heysel, the trial of the Chadian dictator Hissène Habré, the Killers of Brabant, the attacks in Brussels… he got wet there too…
Master Beauthier, why stop now?
“I have fifty years of experience at the bar. It’s a good lease. I was a fighter, moderate all the same in the challenge. Secondly, in 2022, I found myself, during the Covid, in a situation where I had to prepare a course for trainee lawyers. And I took a long time. I no longer wanted to completely dive back into the material. There was weariness. I thought others could do it better than me. I would not have the same enthusiasm to give a course on the law of foreigners today. I am overwhelmed, I am no longer up to it. The matter has become so disparate, there is no longer any common thread, except for the piecemeal decisions of successive ministers. We need an overhaul of the laws, new guidelines, something other than mending.”
You are labeled as the victims’ lawyer…
“When one was the lawyer of a victim of Dutroux, one does not imagine after defending a pedophile. I feel more comfortable as a victims’ lawyer. When I started the bar, they were the prosecutor’s little hands. But I also defended criminals. The first criminal defense I made was for a rapist. My concern, in addition to his defence, was to make this type of trial public. At the time, intra-family affairs were behind closed doors. Finally, I got a man who beat his wife not to oppose a public trial.”
The responsibility of the gendarmes, of justice, we did not want to dig. Dutroux was an agent of the Sûreté or the gendarmerie? Or both? Why didn’t we report him sooner? Why did we protect him? It was clearly a clue.
With hindsight, what does the Dutroux Dossier inspire in you? ?
“A big mess. We still don’t know what really happened. We were only sold with Dossier bis (Ed. aimed at finding possible suspects other than those who had been tried), we would be given answers. The victims, like Jean-Denis Lejeune or Lætitia Delhez, did not receive any. Telling me that the Vatican was in there, I’m not going to believe it. I never said there were established networks. I said we didn’t have the whole truth. The responsibility of the gendarmes, of justice, we did not want to dig. Dutroux was an agent of the Sûreté or the gendarmerie? Or both? Why didn’t we report him sooner? Why did we protect him? It was clearly a clue. We let a lot of things happen. So a waste, but we were still able to ensure that victims’ rights progressed. That they are no longer considered as second-class parties or helpers of prosecutors. But full parts. That said, there is still progress to be made at the level of the sentence enforcement courts, particularly during conditional releases. The victims are considered as small portions, there is no adversarial procedure, they have no right of appeal.
During the Dutroux affair, many conspiracy theories emerged. Did you feel included among those who defended outlandish theses?
“There is a bit of that. As long as we are not faced with an established truth, that we do not give you plausible explanations, the place is there to fantasize. It’s a bit like Covid. We now see that those who challenged the Covid, somewhere they were right, somewhere they were wrong. The government had to take comprehensive and unpopular measures. We imposed things on people without giving them the necessary explanations, without real democratic debate. But on the other hand, what are the effects of the vaccine on people’s health? That, we will only know in a few years. There are truths, there are excesses. But in the excesses, there have been truths told that are not false either.
Elle s’en black Laetitia?
“She is doing with her children, with her life. This is the greatest victory. Each victim had their approach. Sabine Dardenne was rather reserved, less militant. I’m not criticizing her, huh. Lætitia didn’t want to make statements but she attended, she was there. However, the first time I saw her at the examining magistrate, she had ulcers she was so badly, she was not listened to, not heard. Initially, she did not want to come to the trial. We had to unblock things, persuade her that it was important for her and for everyone.
Laetitia Delhez interviews Marc DutrouxRelease of Dutroux: the letter from Laetitia Delhez and Jean-Denis Lejeune to justice
What are you going to do now?
“First rest. There are trials that I would still have liked to lead, aimed at giving rights to nature. We don’t have the right to do what we do, to leave nature in this state as a legacy for future generations. There is also a huge problem with digital and privacy. There is a whole series of files, of dependencies in relation to computers that panic me, that scare me. The number of people who are dirty on social networks, until they commit suicide. If I had continued, my next customers could have been victims of harassment or defamation. We cannot leave people distraught in the face of gossip, gossip. We really have to have civic action to ensure that we are not locked in files. I see myself putting myself at the service of associations that tackle these problems.”
Georges-Henri Beauthier was the lawyer for fifteen civil parties during the trial of Assadollah Assadi, sentenced in Antwerp to 20 years in prison for attempted murder and terrorism. The same one in question in the context of the thorny case of prisoner exchange with the Belgian Olivier Vandecasteele, imprisoned in Iran.
Should this trade be made?
“I’m not going to position myself. That said, I asked, with other colleagues, for four years, the condemnation of Assadi and his acolytes. And there, we would ignore this court decision to send him back to Iran where we will release him, where he will be welcomed as a hero. It would be a snub to Belgian justice. Once again, my role as a lawyer is to defend the victims. The victims are all those who have already been murdered by the Iranian regime. And that’s all those who could have been killed. And it’s also Olivier Vandecasteele. In principle, I am against a prisoner exchange with convicted terrorists of this magnitude. And, on the other side, there is a man who is risking his life. But there are plenty of others, too, in the sights of the Iranian authorities. Iranian power does not go hand in hand. And we are not even sure that if we accept Iran’s conditions, Olivier Vandecasteele will be released safe and sound. We are not facing people of good faith on the Iranian side. On the other hand, for Olivier Vandecasteele, we must obtain better conditions of detention and a fair trial.”
The Constitutional Court rejects the appeal for annulment of the transfer treaty with Iran, a hope for Olivier Vandecasteele