7. In June 2016, the President of the CPT went to Brussels for talks with Mr Koen Geens, Minister of Justice, attended by a representative of the Prime Minister. It emerged from these talks that action would be taken to ensure that the basic rights of prisoners were upheld in any future industrial action, in particular by means of a legislative initiative by the end of 2016.18 8. At its 92nd plenary meeting in March 2017, the Committee took note of the Belgian authorities’ new commitment to embark upon a more comprehensive project with social partners. The 2017 periodic visit was an opportunity to review the situation with the Minister and a large number of stakeholders, including senior public servants, senior representatives of trade union organisations, representative associations of prison directors, judges and prosecutors, police officers, lawyers, representatives of independent national institutions, representatives of the Central Prison Monitoring Council and local monitoring committees, and members of NGOs and civil society. At times the views expressed were diametrically opposed, particularly as regards the introduction of a guaranteed minimum service in prisons and various matters relating to the status of prison staff. In contrast, those with whom the delegation spoke were unanimous on one point: a “red line” had been crossed during the 2016 strikes. The general impression was that persons deprived of their liberty in the prisons concerned had, because of this action, been placed in conditions which could amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or lead to the aggravation of conditions already held to be incompatible with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.19 The information gathered by the delegation during the 2017 visit also suggested that, despite their considerable efforts, prison management and the few other members of the staff who were at work during the 2016 strikes did not have the resources required to ensure the physical and psychological integrity of remand or sentenced prisoners, and even less so those subject to a psychiatric detention measure. The death of one psychiatric detainee on 17 May 2016, after being violently attacked by a co-detainee in the psychiatric wing of Lantin Prison, once again raises concerns for the CPT, in the light of the new information gathered on the spot, about the excessive risks that can be incurred during such industrial action. 9. On the ground, during the 2017 visit, the situation was beyond dispute: frustration, demoralisation and a sense of having been abandoned were the main feelings expressed by the many people with whom the delegation spoke, whether they were prisoners or those responsible for looking after them. The delegation was also able to note that these strikes had left serious after-effects on the members of the various categories of staff. The delegation discerned genuine unease among certain prison staff whom it met, who felt that the 2016 industrial action had quite simply tarnished the image of the profession and had jeopardised the principle of exemplary conduct. Further, many felt that absenteeism among prison staff had increased significantly during the strikes and the difficulty in dealing with this phenomenon continued to put a huge strain on the day-to-day organisation of work. 18. See also the CPT’s report on the 2016 visit to Belgium and the response of the Belgian government (in French only). 19. See the aforementioned pilot judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and, for example, the judgment of 16 May 2017 in the Sylla and Nollomont v. Belgium cases (in French only). Appendices ► Page 57