No Response by the Attorney General of Antwerp, Christine Dekkers, to Ten Urgent Requests for Contact with Loved
The attorney general of Antwerp can act directly in many matters. The attorney general has
done so before. That would be by far the most effective way of handling this particular matter which involves
the international traffic in children, pedophile rings and complicit officials, especially in Antwerp.
Following routine procedure, the attorney general could refer the requests to an assistant
attorney general. However, an assistant attorney general, Marc Tack, who was an assistant prosecuting attorney in Antwerp's
juvenile court before his current position, ignored many similar requests addressed to him in 2004. Other assistant attorney
generals mishandled the requests when they were assistant prosecuting attorneys in Antwerp's main courthouse.
The attorney general's office could contact the city police directly and request that it put
a child in immediate telephone contact with his family. Indeed, that would be the most effective way to respond to a family's
request for contact with a loved one that has been repeatedly refused by city officials.
In fact, referral of this matter by the attorney general to anyone else would be "passing
the buck" and a clear signal to dispose of it through routine procedures, in effect, to ignore the family's requests and to
invent excuses for not cooperating with the family, to write false reports about the child, and to stir up complaints against
the child’s family and possibly murder the child to destroy incriminating evidence.
It is likely that the attorney general referred the family's requests to the prosecuting attorney
for Antwerp. That can be considered standard routine procedure, but it would be inappropriate in this particularly urgent
and long-neglected matter.
The prosecuting attorney, or his secretary, would refer the family's letters to an assistant
prosecuting attorney in his office.
The assistant prosecuting attorney would have three options:
(1) Order the police to put the child in immediate telephone contact with his family;
(2) Refer the requests to a judge of instruction who, in turn, would
(a) Order the city police to find the child and put him in direct contact
with his family or
(b) Refer the matter back to the prosecutor;
(3) Refer the requests to assistant prosecuting attorneys in the juvenile court.
Referral of the urgent requests to assistant prosecuting attorneys in the juvenile court would
be a further signal to ignore the requests and, also, to cover up the matter.
The assistant prosecuting attorneys in the juvenile court could follow one of three routines:
(1) Refer the requests to the juvenile division of the city police.
The chief of the juvenile division, Sonja DeBrynt, would refer the requests to social workers
with the juvenile division of the city police who would contact local city school employees and ask for information about
the child and then report back to the chief of the juvenile division who would report back to the assistant prosecuting attorney
at the juvenile court.
(2) Refer the letters to the Provincial Department of Social Services where social workers
would contact school employees and request information about the child and report back to the assistant prosecutor.
Social workers and directors of the Provincial Department of Social Services have long been
notorious for erratic and immature behavior, violent public displays of anger, utter lack of common decent manners, general
dishonesty and unreliability. Some have been reported to have close links to pedophile, prostitution and child trafficking
(3) Refer the family's requests to social workers in the juvenile court. The social workers
would go to the school and visit the child’s living quarters and then report directly to a judge in the juvenile court
with a recommendation to put the child in telephone contact with his family.
The attorney general, Dekkers, might have requested written reports from policemen
and/or social workers that would excuse her intransigence.
It is possible also that Dekkers has conflicts of interests in this matter and that
she herself could be complicit in the kidnapping and trafficking of Oliver Chanyut and in fraud committed by the kidnappers,
traffickers and corrupt officials.
It is possible also that Dekkers, to cover cronies, is ignoring the matter
in the hope of taking advantage of statutes of limitation. Earlier, many court officials seemed to believe that by blocking
any court decision in this case they would prevent the family from complaining to the European Court of Human Rights which
will not accept complaints without a court decision in the state concerned within the previous six months.
The Belgian Federal Minister of Justice, Marc Verwilghen, and the Federal Minister of Interior,
Antoine Duquesne, ignored related correspondence for several years. In 2003, they wrote false reports about Oliver Chanyut
to persons inquiring at the family's behest. Their reports might have been prepared, in part, with the current attorney general
In 2004, Verwilghen's successor, Laurette Onkelinx, as Minister of Justice, and Duquesne's
successor, Patrick Dewael, as Minister of Interior, ignored repeated requests to order Antwerp officials to cooperate with
the family. The attorney general of Antwerp, by peddling false reports, might have offered them an excuse for their intransigence.
For a sampling of correspondence with the Belgian Federal Ministry of Justice, click
For a sampling of correspondence with the Belgian Federal Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt,
click here: ____________________
For a sampling of correspondence regarding the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, click here