Selective treatment of alleged victims compared to persons in same situation

the parents’ claim that they did not know the marriages were a sham and may have also considered the parents’ own dificult inancial situation which was exploited by the network. In addition, it seemed to adopt an assumption that as parents, they would want their daughters to be married through legitimate channels and would not intentionally collude at engaging them in prostitution. On the other hand, the court of cassation, in its ruling, seems to be expressing a doubt about the parents’ innocence, perhaps in view of the fact that the victims were exploited several times. Interestingly, the Egyptian Traficking Law expressly states that in regard to minors the consent of the person responsible for the minor is irrelevant, thus recogniz- ing the possibility of parents’ and guardians’ complicity in this crime. Family complicity in traficking and allied crimes Family complicity in traficking and allied crimes is not a rare phenomenon. This complicity may be innocent, with the family member believing that the traficker will change the victim’s life to the better, OR it may be with criminal intent. Family complicity can create the following complexities: • Tendency of victim to believe the family member and thus allow himself to be traficked, even if he initially suspects the offer is not bona ide • Unawareness on the part of the victim that he has been victimized • Unwillingness of victim to testify against the family member • Dificulty in deciding if the family member is an innocent victim of deception or a traficker Cases with family members as defendants may call for special treatment: • A particularly sympathetic treatment of victim by the court • An understanding by the court of the inluence of the family relationship on the victim’s testimony • The reframing of questions by the prosecution andor the court • Submission of evidence other than the victim’s testimony • Submission of expert testimony

3.3.6 Victim behaviour in the course of the traficking process

Victim behaviour can present problems in securing convictions in traficking cases. In section 2.2 on “Victim Testimony”, we discussed victim behaviour in the context of the trial process and found that it can weaken a case. This section, on the other hand, is devoted to victim behaviour in the course of the traficking process. This may include not coming forth right away, not leeing when an opportunity arises, returning to an abusive employer and even consenting to severe exploitation. While all of these forms of behaviour are generally viewed by courts as impinging on the credibility of victims, cases worldwide show that these behaviour patterns are common in cases of traficking and allied crimes. In order to address this reality, courts have found various solutions and not impugned credibility on this basis alone, but rather viewed it in the context of the totality of surrounding circumstances. As said above, much of this behaviour revolves around victim consent or seeming consent to the crime—a topic which is directly addressed in section 4.4, which is devoted to victim consent.