Introduction Kinds of evidence

The following are a number of examples of cases in which victims contradicted themselves or even told falsehoods, and yet courts still found them credible in recognition of the reasons that may have led to such behaviour. The reasoning of the various courts is instructive in providing tools for practitioners to deal with weaknesses in victim testimony. The case Correa Perea Argentina 20 concerned the traficking of three minor girls for sexual exploitation where the two defendants used threats, violence and intimidation to control the victims. The court noted minimal contradictions in the testimony of one of the victims but found that the victim’s testimony was credible enough to prove, at least in part, the recruitment, harbouring, abuse and subjugation required for the human traficking conviction. Additional evidence in this case included testimony from the other two victims, law enforcement oficials and the mother of one of the victims. In relying upon the victim’s testimony, the court considered the lapse of time between the four occasions in which her testimony was given, the human motivations behind the contradictions, including fear, and the court’s understanding of the functioning of the human psyche which may tend to attempt to delete dificult events. The supporting testimony may also have played a part in the court’s assessment. Both defendants were convicted of traficking for sexual exploitation of minors and of promotion of prostitution of minors. In López López Argentina, 21 two defendants, a man and a woman, ran a brothel in which minor girls were sexually exploited. Two of the victims were related to the female defendant; one was her daughter and the other one was her niece. Both victims grossly contradicted themselves in their testimony compared to the statements they had given during the investigation. The court expressed its understanding of the effects of family relationship on the victims’ behaviour, 22 and found that it could be assumed that these victims were likely not to tell the truth, in order not to cause any harm to the defendant. The evidence in the case did not rely solely on the testimony of these victims; it included a statement by the landlord who rented out the dwelling that was used as a brothel, testimony from other victims who were not related to the defendants and an expert psychological evaluation of one of the victims which demonstrated indicators of psycho-emotional and sexual abuse. The defendants were found guilty of human traficking of minors and related charges. 23 In Urizar Canada, 24 the defendant traficked his girlfriend for sexual exploitation, abusing her physically, verbally, emotionally and sexually. The victim’s testimony in court included omissions and lapses of memory, a few exaggerations, contradictions, moments of hesitation, and inconsistencies. Despite these weaknesses, and despite the fact that her testimony was not corroborated, the court ruled that the victim was still credible, using the tools of common sense, the reasonableness of the testimony, the lack of proven motivation to lie, the victim’s 20 Correa Perea, Mendoza, August 2013, case 2853-C, Argentina. The case is available in the UNODC Human Traficking Case Law Database UNODC Case No. ARG060. 21 López López y Novello, TOCF II, Córdoba, 0613, Argentina. The case is available in the UNODC Human Traficking Case Law Database UNODC Case No. ARG056. 22 The court stated that victims of traficking in persons, because of their great vulnerability, seem reluctant to tell the truth or give testimonies which are totally coherent. But in this speciic case, the victims are not only victims of traficking but also the daughter and niece of the lady LLL, which adds an extra element that explains why they are not telling the truth. If she told us the truth, she would expose her mother to the risk of a ten years or more penalty. So she has an additional, understandable and valid justiication to lie. 23 The additional charges were: a managing andor operating a brothel; and b promoting or facilitating the prostitution of minors. 24 R. v. Urizar, File No. 505-1-084654-090, L-017.10, Court of Québec, District of Longueuil, Criminal Division J.C.Q., 2010-08-13, 13 August 2010, Canada and Urizar v. R., No. 500-10-004763-106, Court of Appeal, Quebec, 16 January 2013, Canada. The trial court case is available in the UNODC Human Traficking Case Law Database UNODC Case No. CAN005. For detailed facts, see the in-depth analysis in section 5.2 of the Case Digest.