The Belgian Holocaust denial law, passed on 23 March 1995, bans public Holocaust denial. Specifically, the law makes it illegal to publicly "deny, play down, justify or approve of the genocide committed by the German National Socialist regime during the Second World War". Prosecution is led by the Belgian Centre for Equal Opportunities. The offense is punishable by imprisonment of up to one year and fines of up to 2,500 EUR. Legislative history The Holocaust denial bill, drafted by Claude Eerdekens and Yvan Mayeur of the Parti Socialiste, was introduced in the Chamber of Representatives by Eerdekens (PS), Marcel Cheron (Ecolo), Marcel Colla (SP), Yvan Mayeur (PS), Luc Dhoore (CVP), Raymond Langendries (CDH), Louis Michel (MR) and Mieke Vogels (Agalev) on 30 June 1992. The bill passed the Chamber of Representatives on 2 February 1995, with 194 votes in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions. The bill passed the Senate on 14 March 1995. The Vlaams Blok, the predecessor of the Vlaams Belang, voted for the law, "out of a desire for respectability and to break out of its political isolation", even though its leadership "contained Holocaust deniers". Senator Herman Suykerbuyk (CVP), author of a 1996 Flemish decree placing on the same level victims of the Nazi occupation and "victims" of the post World War II repression, abstained when the bill was voted in the Senate. King Albert II signed and promulgated the bill on 23 March 1995. The Act was published in the Belgian Official Journal on 30 March 1995 and entered into force on the same day. Freedom of expression In the past, adversaries of the law have argued that this law restricts the freedom of expression, which is a basic human right. In a decision of 24 June 2003, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) stated that "denying or minimising the Holocaust must be seen as one of the acutest forms of racial slandering and incentives to hatred towards the Jews. The negation or the revision of historical facts of this type call into question the values which found the fight against racism and anti-semitism and is likely to seriously disturb law and order. Attacks against the rights of others of this kind are incompatible with democracy and human rights and their authors incontestably have aims that are prohibited by article 17 of the Convention." The court concludes that in application of article 17 of the