In light of the recent accusation of Richard Biefnot (PS), echevin of Housing and Urbanism in Mons, I was trying to figure out what kinds of images he actually possessed and on the basis of what laws he is being prosecuted.
Seems like this simple question is being deliberately obscured by media.
That is, there shall be a difference between possession of e.g. Hentai and of videos of children making sex because the whole point of prosecuting the buyers is to keep the children out of the danger of being abused by reducing the demand. Obviously, no child has been abused in the production of Hentai, or other purely fictional artwork, so this argument does not apply for Hentai.
Unfortunately, it is very hard to find the relevant legislation in order to check whether this distinction is maintained in the legislation, but I would not be surprised if it is not.
Update: Thanks to a fellow lawyer friend, I got a pointer to the relevant legislation, and, I as expected, there is no such distinction, indeed:
Code penal Chapitre VII. Des outrages publics aux bonnes mœurs
Art. 383bis
§ 1er.
[Sans préjudice de l'application des articles 379 et 380, quiconque aura exposé, vendu, loué, distribué, diffusé ou remis des emblèmes, objets, films, photos, diapositives ou autres supports visuels qui représentent des positions ou des actes sexuels à caractère pornographique, impliquant ou présentant des mineurs ou les aura, en vue du commerce ou de la distribution, fabriqués ou détenus, importés ou fait importer, remis à un agent de transport ou de distribution, sera puni de la réclusion de cinq ans à dix ans et d'une amende de cinq cents [euros] à dix mille [euros].]
§ 2.
Quiconque aura sciemment possédé les emblèmes, objets, films, photos, diapositives ou autres
supports visuels visés sous le § 1er, sera puni d'un emprisonnement d'un mois à un an et d'une
amende de cent [euros] à mille [euros].