had been degrading treatment.14 The lack of effective control of industrial action in prisons has caused further suffering and worsened the already uncertain conditions in which these persons find themselves pending the provision of appropriate care. Guaranteed minimum service and basic rights of persons held in prison establishments: the subject of ever more intense dialogue between the CPT and the Belgian authorities 4. The question of establishing a service guaranteeing the basic rights of persons held in prison establishments (“guaranteed minimum service”) was raised in the CPT’s reports on the 2005, 2009, 2012 and 2013 visits in order to address the challenges referred to above.15 The dialogue between the Committee and the Belgian authorities intensified still further with effect from March 2014 when, given the lack of any progress for many years, the CPT was obliged to initiate the procedure which could result in the exceptional measure of making a public statement, in accordance with Article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention establishing the Committee.16 In October 2014, the Committee was pleased to note that the introduction of a guaranteed minimum service in prisons had been included in the Government Coalition Agreement.17 5. However, the situation reached its peak almost two years later, between April and June 2016, when there was unusually severe strike action affecting most prisons in the French-speaking areas. For almost two months, prison, administrative and health-care staff were prevented from entering their workplace. The staff present in the establishments concerned were reduced in most cases to management staff assisted by a few health-care staff and prison officers. The police had to be mobilised once again and deal with the challenge facing them and others brought in to help out, of carrying out very specialised duties that they were not competent to perform. For the first time, the Belgian authorities were obliged to call on the armed forces to help the management and a handful of prison staff on the brink of exhaustion to ensure security in the prisons. 6. The CPT took prompt action by carrying out an ad hoc visit in May 2016. The Committee’s delegation visited the prisons of Huy, Ittre and Jamioulx, and the social defence establishment in Paifve, in each of which management staff were struggling to cope with the chaos caused by the strikes. 14. See the pilot judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 6 September 2016 (which became final on 6 December 2016) in the W.D. v. Belgium case (in French only). The reason why the Court considered that there had been degrading treatment lies in the fact that such persons were being held for a prolonged period of time in a prison environment without being given treatment appropriate to their state of health. The Court held that this problem was structural in nature and called on the authorities to take the necessary measures to address it within two years. 15. These visit reports and the corresponding government responses are available (in French only) on the CPT’s website: http://www.coe.int/en/web/cpt/belgium. 16. Article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention reads as follows: “If the Party fails to co-operate or refuses to improve the situation in the light of the Committee’s recommendations, the Committee may decide, after the Party has had an opportunity to make known its views, by a majority of two-thirds of its members to make a public statement on the matter.” 17. See Government Agreement of 9 October 2014, pages 122-123 (in Dutch and French only). General Report of the CPT, 2017 ► Page 56