Belgium Begins Largest-Ever Trial Over 2016 Bombing

Facts

On Wednesday, Belgium began its largest-ever criminal trial prosecuting 10 alleged jihadists accused of directing or aiding the 2016 suicide bombings in Brussels' metro and airport that killed 32 people.
Nine defendants were present, including prime suspect Abdeslam Salah, who has been convicted in France for his role in the 2015 Paris attacks that killed 130 people. One suspect, Osama Krayem, refused to stand, and another, Oussama Atar, is presumed dead.
The Islamic State (ISIS) claims credit for the attacks in Paris and Belgium. Salah was arrested on March 18, 2016, for allegedly planning an attack on the Euro Cup in France — four days before the two bombings in Brussels.
The launch of the trial saw 1k Belgians summoned for the selection of 12 jurors and 24 replacements to settle the case — a contrast to the French trial, which was decided by judges.
Hundreds of family members of the victims and others who were harmed are scheduled to testify in the trial, which is expected to last into next year, with main evidential hearings beginning on Dec. 5.
The trial had been scheduled to begin in October but was delayed due to controversy over the individualized glass cubicles the defendants were supposed to occupy. The dock has since been rebuilt into a singular, shared area.

Establishment-critical narrative, as provided by DW. Six years after the deadliest peacetime attack in Belgium's history, victims and their families have yet to receive any semblance of closure. In an embarrassing display of passivity, Brussels prioritized the wants of the accused over the needs of the victims. The trial, while an important step, isn't off to a good start.
Pro-establishment narrative, as provided by Bulletin. While there's no argument that victims — and the country as a whole — deserve justice and those responsible must be held accountable, Belgium has a responsibility to ensure a fair trial for the accused. Amid concerns that the glass boxes would inhibit the defendants' abilities to communicate with their lawyers, the court was right to delay the proceedings.