Evidence of human trafficking often badly handled by investigators, says gov’t advisor
The Dutch investigative authorities too often let evidence of human trafficking slide, the National Rapporteur on Human Trafficking and Sexual Violence against Children concluded in a new study. The police, the Dutch Labor Inspectorate, and the Koninklijke Marechaussee receive countless signals that could indicate human trafficking, but the follow-up to these signals varies greatly, rapporteur Conny Rijken said. “In some cases, the follow-up of evidence is seriously inadequate.”
Many human trafficking cases contain multiple signals of coercion and victims who were already in a vulnerable position due to, for example, homelessness, mental health problems, debts, or being a child. Suspected perpetrators have often already been in contact with the authorities for other crimes like fraud, theft, or weapons possession. Some were even previously connected to human trafficking. According to the Rapporteur, if the authorities followed up on these signals, many victims could be rescued sooner.
“Although investigative services are required to follow up on every signal of human trafficking, this follow-up varies greatly per organization,” the Rapporteur said. For example, the Labour Inspectorate only speaks to the victim in 30 percent of the cases, while the police do so in 69 percent of the cases. The Koninklijke Marechaussee (KMar), a policing service that works as part of the Dutch military, speaks to 93 percent of the cases, but is much more likely to forward signals to the police than investigate itself.
Due to limited follow-up, very few signals of human trafficking at the Labor Inspectorate led to actual investigation. “The Labour Inspectorate concludes too often, without further investigation, that reports are not a matter for investigation,” the Rapporteur said. The Rapporteur investigated 209 registrations of potential human trafficking by the Inspectorate. Only four led to the start of a new criminal investigation.
“This while we see that most reports contain signals of possible exploitation, including coercion and threats,” according to the National Rapporteur. Rijken called for structural improvement in follow-up on these signals at the Labor Inspectorate.
The main issue at the KMar is its limited task description, leading to a lack of clarity about the military policing service’s role in gathering more information in the event of noticing something that could indicate human trafficking. “As a result, signals are sometimes only minimally investigated, while an earlier project has shown that the KMar can gather crucial information for the further investigation process,” the Rapporteur said. He recommended clarifying the KMar’s task description for human trafficking.
For the police, the Rapporteur recommended strengthening knowledge about how to recognize human trafficking throughout the police service. “Primarily among investigating officers who do not primarily focus on human trafficking,” the Rapporteur said. According to him, criminal exploitation and sexual exploitation sometimes go unnoticed. “Officers do not ask enough about possible coercion or exploitation in cases that initially seem to be about something else, such as shoplifting by a minor or illegal prostitution in a home.”
