Case No. 8959—2012 Egypt In-depth analysis of selected cases

of work carried out by taking advantage of a person’s vulnerability—with a punish- ment of two years imprisonment and subjecting an individual to working or living conditions which are incompatible with human dignity by taking advantage of that individual’s vulnerability or state of dependence—with a punishment of two years imprisonment. The four French courts who dealt with the case analysed it according to these sections. • European Convention of Human Rights: Article 4 of the European Convention of Human Rights prohibits slavery, servitude and forced labour. States who are parties to the convention are obligated to ensure that their legislative system is effective in giving effect to these prohibitions. The European Court of Human Rights analysed if the case fell into “slavery”, “servitude” or “forced labour” and then ruled on the question if France’s legislation fulilled her obligations to effectively prohibit these phenomena. The analysis below is based upon the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights which also alludes to the rulings of the French courts and the evidence presented before them. Court ruling 1. Conviction though no overt threats or violence: In this case there were no overt threats or violence. However the court did not ind these to be necessary elements of the crimes. The victim did not claim that the defendants physically assaulted her or threatened her with physical harm. However, they nurtured her fears of arrest and deceived her about regularizing her immigration status and allowing her schooling. The court found that although she was not threatened explicitly her reality put her in the “equivalent situation in terms of the perceived seriousness of the threat”. 654 2. The importance of the victim’s vulnerability, including family complicity: The victim’s position of vulnerability as a minor was relevant to the court which stated that “as a minor, she had no resources and was vulnerable and isolated”. 655 Another interesting facet of the case, though it was not addressed explicitly by the court, was the victim’s family’s complicity in her traficking in that her father made the initial arrangement and her uncle encouraged her to return to the abusive situation. At least one of these family members subsequently testiied in a way beneicial to the defence. Even if family members had the best of intentions, their involvement made the victim more vulnerable to exploitation. It is noteworthy that the defence attempted to counter the victim’s vulnerability by claiming that the victim knew French and was familiar with Paris. However, the court did not accept this as a counter to the above vulnerabilities. 3. Broad understanding of restrictions of freedom: The victim was not under lock and key imprisonment and she was permitted to leave the house to do speciic tasks and errands for the family and to go to Mass on Sundays without being supervised. Despite this, the court ruled that the supervision over her movements, the lack of free time and fears of arrest by police, can be factors in viewing a victim’s movements as restricted. 654 Ibid. at para. 118. 655 Ibid. at para. 126. “the [victim], who was afraid of being arrested by the police, was not in any event permitted to leave the house, except to take the children to their classes and various activities. Thus, she had no freedom of movement and no free time.” […] “the [victim], who was afraid of being arrested by the police, was not in any event permitted to leave the house, except to take the children to their classes and various activities. Thus, she had no freedom of movement and no free time.” Siliadin v. France App. No. 7331601 ECHR, 26 July 2005, European Court of Human Rights. The case is available in the UNODC Human Traficking Case Law Database UNODC Case No. FRA010, para. 127. 4. Sporadic presents do not constitute payment: The court found that the victim did not receive payment for the tasks performed, even though she did receive small sums of money occasionally, despite the fact that she had enough money to call her uncle from telephone boxes, and despite the defendant’s claims that they were creating a “nest egg” for the victim that she would receive upon her departure. 5. The victim’s behaviour or seeming consent: The victim in this case behaved in ways that could conceivably have led the court to doubt her credibility or view her as consenting to her situation. However, the court displayed an understanding that these behaviours were a function of the victim’s situation of isolation and vulnerability. The following are examples: • The victim did not complain to her father or uncle of the conditions when she met them and did not ask them for money. Nor did she complain in the presence of the defendant’s mother while staying with her. • The victim returned to the defendants’ house a few months after she escaped from it, in obedience to her uncle.

5.10 Grigore and others Germany

656 The kinds of evidence included in this case are victim statements, victim testimony, and police statements. It should be noted that the case cantered almost exclusively on the victim’s testimony. The mosaic of evidence in this case includes deception, threats of harm to child and family, vulnerabilities consisting of lack of familiarity with language and culture, poor education and poverty and family complicity in the crime, restrictions of freedom including constant supervision and coniscation of personal documents, dificult conditions long hours of pros- titution and no payment. Weaknesses in the mosaic of evidence include the victim’s seeming “negligence”, as she had been traficked before, and the short duration of the exploitation The prosecutor indicted three defendants: Constantin, his father Alexandru who was the victim’s uncle, and Diana Monica, who was the victim’s cousin. Constantin and Diana Monica were indicted together but the case was separated by the court, as Diana Monica 656 High District Court Landgericht Berlin, case against Grigore and others, Az. 528 Qs 10513 255 Js 78313 of 23 September 2013, Germany. was onsidered a juvenile. The defendant Alexandru was indicted later after he was extradited from Spain. Two of the court’s chambers found the victim to be credible and convicted the defendants Monica and Alexandru on charges of traficking by means of deception, whereas another chamber acquitted Constantin. In March 2012, a 26-year-old Romanian woman was called by her cousin Monica in her home village in Romania. Monica asked whether the victim would like to come to Germany to care for an elderly lady. She told her cousin that the job would be facilitated by her boyfriend, Constantin. As the victim had been deceived by other persons from her village before in 2010 who led her into prostitution against her will in Germany, she was sceptical of the offer. Monica’s offer was then backed by the victim’s uncle, Alexandru, who eventually convinced her to travel to Germany. Constantin and Alexandru thereupon brought the victim to Germany, where her identiication papers were taken from her and she was forced to conduct sexual relations as a street prostitute. She was forced to work all night, her earnings were collected by Monica and given to Constantin and both defendants supervised her all day. She was threatened that if she tried to escape, something would happen to her child and family. The victim managed to escape 48 hours later. She was consecutively interviewed by police, taken into a shelter for victims of traficking and received legal and social assistance. Court ruling Based on the victim’s statements and additional police investigations, search warrants and arrest warrants were issued by the court on request of the prosecutor, and both Monica and Constantin were arrested. Upon their appeals against their arrest warrants, two chambers of the court overturned the two arrest warrants and ruled that the victim’s story was not credible as she had been traficked before, and thus should have seen what was coming. 657 The prosecutor appealed these two decisions, arguing that the two chambers had not evalu- ated the evidence correctly. Speciically, the prosecutor pointed out that the defendants were all family members whom the victim had trusted, and based on this speciic kind of trust she decided to believe them and follow them to Germany. The court then overturned the decisions and reinstated the arrest warrants. 658 Both defendants were arrested again in Roma- nia and extradited. The case then went to trial. During the trial against Monica a new chamber of the court heard the victim in the courtroom and deemed her story to be credible. 659 Monica was consequently convicted for severe traf- icking by means of deception. As a mitigating circumstance the chamber considered the fact that Monica was herself a victim of traficking and had acted under duress when she helped Constantin to recruit her own cousin the victim in this case. The trial against Constantin convened in May 2014. He was acquitted by the chamber because the victim was not deemed credible enough. The court stated that they believed the 657 Ibid. 658 High Court of Berlin Kammergericht, Decision on Appeal of Arrest Warrant in Case against Grigore and others, 255 Js 78313 of 11 November 2013. 659 High District Court of Berlin Landgericht Berlin, 507 Kls 714 255 Js 78313, verdict of 8 April 2014.