The victim’s freedom to come and go

Implicit in this is the assumption that traficking can succeed only when victims are isolated from support systems. And, in fact, trafickers often strive to isolate victims, as can be seen in cases as described above in section 3.2.7 on “Isolation”. Exonerations taking into account victims’ support systems A case in which the existing victims’ support systems contributed to an exoneration from the charge of “holding a person under conditions of slavery” was A.G.G.R. Israel. 489 The case concerned a charismatic man who gathered around him a number of women and their children and exerted control over them in various ways, including requiring them to work and transfer all their earnings to him. In exonerating him from the slavery charge, the court commented that all the alleged victims had passed their lives in normative society and were well aware of the difference between normative life and life with the defendant. There was no obstacle to their leaving except a psychological obstacle. Similarly, in Aserio Giuseppe Germany, 490 the court exonerated the defendant of traf- icking because it found that the victim could have told her parents about the exploitation in prostitution at any time, as she and the defendant lived with her parents when the exploita- tion began. The court did not deem the victim’s explanation suficient—that the relationship with her mother and stepfather was problematic. It also found that the victim could have opened up to police and social workers at any time. Convictions despite victims’ support systems However, as the cases cited below demonstrate, depending on the individual circumstances of the case, the fact that there is some form of a support system that the victim can rely on is not always enough to make a traficking conviction untenable. Thus, in a traficking case revolving around sexual exploitation, Urizar Canada, 491 while the court noted that the victim’s relationship with her family was dificult, it also found that the victim was a Canadian citizen conversant with the language and culture who did, in fact, return to her family once her situation deteriorated. Moreover, her parents lived near the residence of the defendant where she was abused. Nevertheless, these positive factors did not prove conclusive to the court and the defendant was nonetheless convicted of traficking and other crimes. The court noted that the victim had no money when she met the defendant, that she had a dificult relationship with her family and that the defendant forced her to take drugs. The combination of these factors made her vulnerable, despite a potential support system. The court of appeals explicitly addressed this point in afirming the conviction thus: “The fact that this control, this direction, this inluence over the complainant’s movements occurred in a location near her parents’ residence, has no impact on Urizar’s guilt.” 492 In another sexual exploitation case, Sieders Australia, 493 the court noted that one of the women victims was given a cellular phone and permitted to call her family in Thailand. Nevertheless, this did not prevent a conviction on servitude charges. 489 Previously cited. 490 Previously cited. For a more detailed description, see section 3.2.2 on “Threatsseemingly unreasonable threats”. 491 Previously cited. For detailed facts, see the in-depth analysis in section 5.2 of the Case Digest 492 Ibid. See Court of Appeals conviction, page 21. 493 Previously cited. In Farrell United States, 494 the victims developed good relationships with other workers in a fast food outlet in which they worked and went bowling with them. This did not prevent a conviction on charges of peonage and other crimes in view of the fact that the employers prohibited contact with other workers and constantly supervised the victims, including during the bowling outings.

3.3.4 Selective treatment of alleged victims compared to persons in same situation

Sometimes, cases of traficking reveal that different persons in one place of work or occupation were treated differently by alleged trafickers. This selective treatment can be a calculated strategy by the traficker, who may feel that it is enough to intimidate victims by mistreating only some persons in order to show them what awaits them if they “misbehave” see section 3.2.1 on “Violence or force”. In this regard, one practitioner commented that at least as regards the MEANS of violence, it is resource intensive and therefore trafickers may limit it in general or to certain victims only. However, there may be cases in which such selective treatment inluences courts to impugn the alleged victims’ credibility. Such a case was Ranya Boonmee Thailand. 495 A central weakness in the mosaic of evidence concerned similarly situated workers who testiied that they were not exploited, were not forced to live on-site and could leave the factory after work, contrary to the testimony of the alleged victims. The trial court did not view these testimonies as central in discounting the prosecution’s case in view of the alleged victims’ testimonies and the photographs adduced by the prosecution, which showed that the compound was enclosed by capped barbed wire and that the workers’ accommodations were within the compound. However, the court of appeals did view these testimonies as strong evidence militating against conviction, especially since the alleged victims’ testimonies were inconsistent. As a result, while the trial court convicted the defendants, the court of appeals exonerated them of the charges of: 1 conspiring to conine other persons, depriving them from liberty and forcing them to do any act for the doer, and 2 accepting and retaining workers illegally, including those under the age of 18 and 15 years old for the purposes of enslavement, compelling them to work in slavery-like practices. The different evaluation of evidence by the trial court and the court of appeal is an excellent illustration of how two judicial tribunals may evaluate the same evidence differently.

3.3.5 Complicity in traficking by victim’s family

Sometimes the traficker and hisher victims have a family relationship, which can create complexities when prosecuting the case. For example, victims are often reluctant to testify against their family members; they may not even consider themselves to be victims of crime because of their relationship with the trafickers and they may more easily believe family members’ deceptions. However, sometimes victims’ families are innocent facilitators of 494 Previously cited. For detailed facts, see the in-depth analysis in section 5.4 of the Case Digest. 495 Previously cited. Information about this case was obtained from the UNODC Human Traficking Case Law Database UNODC Case No. THA001 and a Thai expert. For detailed facts, see the in-depth analysis in section 5.7 of the Case Digest. traficking, when they themselves believe trafickers’ deceptions and hope they will improve the lot of the victims. In these cases, and especially when family members are themselves vulnerable, courts may ind it dificult to decide if they were victims of the deception or active participants in it. See also section 3.2.5.11 on family relationships as a source of vulnerability. In a sexual exploitation case López López Argentina, 496 one of the victims was the defend- ant’s daughter and the other victim was her niece. Although both victims grossly contradicted themselves in their testimony compared to the statements they gave during the investigation, the court expressed its understanding of the effects of family relationship on the victims’ behaviour. The court found that it could be assumed that these victims were not likely to tell the truth in order not to cause any harm to the defendant. It is to be noted that the evidence in the case did not rely solely on the testimony of these victims and included an expert psychological evaluation of one of the victims, which revealed indicators of psycho- emotional and sexual abuse. The defendants were found guilty of human traficking of minors and related charges. “It is usual that this kind of persons victims of traficking in person, because of their great vulner- ability, seem reluctant to tell the truth or give testimonies totally coherent. But in this speciic case, the victims are not only victims of traficking but also daughter and nephew 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 argument, to lie.” López López y Novello, TOCF II, Córdoba, 0613, Argentina. Translation supplied by Mr. Marcello Columbo, an expert practitioner from Argentina. In the sexual exploitation case, Okafor Nigeria, 497 there was a family relationship between one of the victims and the defendant, who was the victim’s biological mother. The victim was initially reluctant to testify. The prosecutor dealt with this by continually reassuring the witness and reframing some questions, in view of her tender age and low level of education, in order to assist the victim to give unbiased testimony. The court concluded that the relation- ship between the daughter and mother had not impacted on the credibility of the victim’s testimony. The defendant was found guilty of three counts of attempting to organize foreign travel to promote prostitution. In Case No. 16852010 Egypt, 498 parents facilitated the sexual abuse of their minor daugh- ter by marrying her, by means of a sham marriage contract, to a person in his eighties and subsequently not heeding her pleas for relief when he sexually abused and beat her. Because of this, the victim threatened to commit suicide. According to a request by the public pros- ecution, the Grand Mufti of Egypt provided the following Fatwa 499 to the court: 496 Previously cited. 497 Previously cited. 498 Previously cited. The case includes a Trial Court decision by the Criminal Court of Giza Province and a ruling of the Court of Cassation ordering a retrial and has been summarized and analysed by an Egyptian expert. 499 Fatwa is a religious opinion issued by an expert mufti demonstrating a ruling within Islamic law based on evidence, as a response to a speciic question.