The government maintained law enforcement efforts. Article 271-A of the penal code criminalized sex trafficking and labor trafficking and prescribed penalties of four to 10 years’ imprisonment; these penalties were sufficiently stringent and, with regard to sex trafficking, commensurate with penalties prescribed for other serious crimes, such as rape.
The government’s capacity to collect anti-trafficking statistics and comprehensively report on law enforcement actions was limited. Police and prosecutors initiated four investigations, continued six investigations from previous reporting periods, and closed six others due to a lack of evidence. This compared with initiating one investigation and continuing eight investigations during the previous reporting period. The government prosecuted and convicted one sex trafficker under penal code provisions on “pimping,” sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment, and ordered him to pay an unreported amount in restitution. A court acquitted three defendants of labor trafficking and employment of undocumented foreign workers in a case which had been pending since 2019. According to observers, there were significant delays in hearing this case and officials did not provide sufficient victim witness-assistance or protection against reprisal for testifying. This compared with prosecuting and convicting one sex trafficker during the previous reporting period. The government did not report any investigations, prosecutions, or convictions of government employees for complicity in human trafficking crimes; however, observers reported official corruption and complicity inhibited or interfered with investigation, law enforcement action, and prosecution in a specific trafficking case. Some observers alleged border police (DEF) solicited bribes to obtain residency documents or illegally facilitated migrants’ entry into the country. Civil society contacts asserted that a reduction in the amount of documentation required of migrants to enter the country had diminished opportunities for corruption. Judges sometimes did not place alleged traffickers in preventative custody during investigations or prosecutions, potentially allowing them the opportunity to interfere in investigations or court proceedings, intimidate witnesses, or leave the country in the event the judge did not prohibit departure.
Inadequate anti-trafficking training, including of police and prosecutors responsible for handling trafficking cases, insufficient resources, and significant and persistent court case backlogs resulted in weak and inconsistent efforts to identify, investigate, and prosecute trafficking cases. Officials conflated human trafficking with other crimes, such as sexual abuse and exploitation or “pimping.” The government provided human rights training for new National Police (PN) officers, which included a component on human trafficking. The government also provided anti-trafficking training to DEF officers. However, it did not provide any specialized training to justice system officials, and some judges continued to rely on more familiar laws pre-dating anti-trafficking penal code provisions to process trafficking cases. Stakeholders reported law enforcement needed specialized training on investigative procedures, evidence collection, and interviewing potential victims. Judicial Police (PJ) presence was limited to the four islands with international airports and the most significant tourism activity, affecting the government’s ability to identify trafficking victims, investigate crimes, and collect comprehensive data. Despite improvements, information sharing between agencies remained inadequate; officials reported a need for additional coordination between the PJ, PN, and prosecutors, as well as between law enforcement and protection actors. Government social service providers often resolved intra-familial abuse and child labor cases, which could include child sex and labor trafficking, through non-judicial means.