Thus, the Case Digest analyses cases in the following contexts: 1. The evidential issue is raised and discussed explicitly. Examples can be questions
such as when and for what purposes expert opinions can be used; when the past sexual history of a victim can be submitted in evidence; when a case will not be
closed though the main victim is not a witness. Within this category there may be rulings directly relevant to the case or those mentioned incidentally.
2. A piece of evidence is mentioned, but there is no explicit discussion of a legal issue in regard to it. Sometimes it appears as part of the mosaic of evidence, without an
explicit comment, thus suggesting that it was viewed as relevant to the conviction; sometimes it appears in conjunction with a brief statement by the court that it is
admissible or relevant, or admissible despite laws or did not detract from the credibil- ity of a witness or of another piece of evidence.
17
3. Sometimes a piece of evidence may be mentioned by the court as a tangential fact, where it is unclear if it was used as part of the mosaic of evidence to attain a
conviction or lead to an exoneration. In view of this array of possibilities, an effort was made to analyse each case painstakingly
and to note how each piece of evidence was addressed by the court: as part of an explicit and direct ruling germane to the case; as an incidental comment; as part of the mosaic of
evidence mentioned by the court as relevant to the conviction or exoneration; as a tangential fact not clearly relevant to the decision.
The Case Digest also attempts to analyse for what purpose a piece of evidence was considered relevant. When a piece of evidence relates to a particular element of the crime, this is
mentioned; when it is connected to the conviction in general, this is noted; when it is relevant to the sentence, this is stressed.
While the Case Digest focuses on convictions, where deemed relevant and in as far as available to the authors, it also seeks to cite cases resulting in exonerations and cases where the
prosecution or police decided not to pursue a case. There is also an attempt to enrich the Case Digest by highlighting cases in which different judges on one bench disagreed or cases
in which there are disagreements between trial and appeals courts.
1.5 Structure of the Case Digest
As can be seen from the table of contents, the Case Digest will irst discuss the kinds of evidence that can be used in the context of bringing to court a traficking in persons or allied
crime case, whether testimonial, documentary or “real evidence”. It will then present what we have called a ”mosaic of evidence”, including a discussion of circumstances that can
contribute to a conviction if established by the court such as violence, vulnerabilities, or restrictions of freedom; a discussion of circumstances that may potentially weaken the case,
e.g., the victim’s apparent freedom of movement. The next section of the Digest addresses particularly dificult evidential challenges such as investigating the full chain of traficking;
cases where exploitation never transpired; and inally, because it deserves particular attention,
17
Examples of such treatment by courts might be mentioning contradictory statements by victims without ruling expressly on their impact on credibility or mentioning the submission of an expert opinion from an
anthropologist or psychologist, without a ruling expressly on its admissibility or weight.
a section on how to handle the scenario of the victim’s consent. The last part of the Case Digest consists of the in-depth analysis of cases that pulls together the variety of evidential
issues which may arise in actual cases.
The overall rationale behind the structure of the Case Digest is to clarify to the reader how to best “build a case” concerning traficking in persons or an allied crime. To use a metaphor
for this structure, it can be compared to a manual on how to construct a house. The “kinds of evidence”, discussed at the beginning of the Case Digest, are like the tools used in this
endeavour; the “mosaic of evidence” can be compared to an array of building materials, which together, contribute to the construction of the house: the materials are not all of the
same weight or centrality, but each can strengthen the ediice. And the “in-depth case analysis” at the end shows how tools and materials bring it all together to produce the house itself.
Thus, the Case Digest can be read as a coherent whole, from beginning to end, in order to help a practitioner understand how to “build” the house of evidence necessary to lead to a
conviction. However, the Case Digest can also be used by practitioners who wish to focus on one speciic evidential aspect that is relevant to the extant case. In order to facilitate such
use, the details of cases are often repeated when such cases are used in different sections of the Digest.
