The Belgian legal environment has been badly shaken over the past few months.

Belgium, and the rest of the world, was shocked when Marc Dutroux, a convicted paedophile, and accomplices were arrested for the abduction of at least six children and the murder of four young girls.During investigations, links were discovered with child pornography networks, rumoured to have involved politicians and judges.

Public indignation was immense and moral outr age reached fever pitch when the Belgian Cour de Cassation delivered its 'spaghetti judgment'.Julien Pierre, counsel for Marc Dutroux, discovered that Mr Bourlet, who had led the investigations, and Marc Connerotte, the investigating judge, had attended a charity 'spaghetti evening' organised by a committee for the support of missing and murdered children.

Two girls who had survived an ordeal at the hands of Marc Dutroux were present at the dinner.Mr Pierre maintained that this cast doubt on the impartiality of Mr Bourlet and Mr Connerotte and, in a controversial judgment, the Cour de Cassation decided that Mr Connerotte's attendance at the dinner had seriously jeopardised his impartiality and that he could no longer work on the case.

From a legal point of view, this was an understandable decision, but it was badly received by the Belgian public.As a direct consequence of the removal of Mr Connerotte, on 20 October tens of thousands of people staged a street protest against the perceived corruption within the judicial system and the political influences on the appointment of judges.

Mr Connerotte and Mr Bourlet became heroes overnight, as did the relatives of victims of the Dutroux gang.

The government and the political world realised that a crisis point had been reached.There is a long tradition of political influences on the appointment of judges in Belgium.

There have always been clear arrangements between the main Belgian political parties about the number of judges and the functions each of them performs.

This system has led to a perception that becoming a judge in Belgium has more to do with holding the right political convictions than with competence or qualifications.

As a result, public confidence in the judiciary has been systematically eroded.The Belgian constitution distinguishes three main levels in the judiciary:-- the Conseil d'Etat/Raad van State and the other administrative courts;-- the Cour d'Arbitrage/Arbitragehof, which was set up to settle conflicts between various legislative rules;-- the normal courts, from Justice of the Peace up to the Cour de Cassation.Members of the Conseil d'Etat are appointed for life by the king (although appointments by the king are appointments by the minister of justice) from lists proposed by the Conseil d'Etat and by the Belgian Parliament.

Judges in the Cour d'Arbitrage are appointed for life by the king from a list proposed by the chamber of representatives and by the senate.

Judges for normal courts are appointed by the king from lists submitted by the courts, the provincial councils, the Cour de Cassation and the chamber of representatives and the senate.A law was adopted in July 1991 to create a more objective system of entry into the judiciary.

Advisory committees were set up and new exams were implemented.

An advisory committee, consisting of judges, academics, lawyers and others, was created to advise the king on the appointment of judges.

However, because its advice is not binding, the committee has no competence in the appointment of judges in the courts of first instance, the courts of appeal and the Cour de Cassation.The government, under the extreme pressure of recent events, has realised that something urgently has to be done to depoliticize the system of appointing judges.

This has led to the creation of a committee with representatives from the various political parties that form Belgium's coalition government.

The committee's task is to work on a number of legislative reforms and to end the system of abuse caused by the political appointment of judges.One proposal currently under consideration is the abolition of the existing system for the appointment and promotion of judges in the normal courts to be replaced by a more objective procedure.

An advisory committee would be set up for this purpose.In addition, it has been suggested that a term for the president and sub-president of a court should be limited to five years, instead of life, and that the appointment should be made by an independent body rather than by the court.

A supervisory body should also be set up under the name of 'high council for justice'.It will take a long time before the neutrality of the judiciary can be adequately safeguarded and the political forces at play in the appointment of the judiciary are finally curbed.