The Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) yesterday criticised the decision to take the four girls rescued from Puruni, in Region Seven back into the area as part of the ongoing investigation, saying that it is not in keeping with existing laws that seek to protect victims from further trauma.
The four girls were rescued by members of the Guyana Women Miners Organisation (GWMO), after they received reports and carried out investigations. As a result, policeman Huford David was charged on Thursday with trafficking a 14-year-old, who was part of the group, into the area for exploitation.
In a statement yesterday, the GHRA commended Crime Chief Seelall Persaud for the prompt action against the rank charged with human trafficking but called the decision to take the girls back into the area mystifying.
It said that Persaud’s indication that it was useful for the victims to point out the scene so that lawmen could reconstruct what happened was baffling, begging the question whether the individuals of interest to the police could not have been identified in Georgetown by the girls.
“The priority needs of victims in sexual offences cases are the paramount consideration and normally those needs centre on feeling safe and being believed,” the GHRA said. It noted that the Sexual Offences Act (SOA) reflects this victim-centred approach and pointed out that the decision of the Child Protection Agency, “as reported in the media, to prioritise police preferences is out of step with modern legislation.”
It noted that Clause 18 of the 2005 Combating of Trafficking in Persons Act (TIP) anticipates intensive support for victims, “irrespective of whether they are willing or able to assist with an investigation.”
“The primary reason for this is for the victim to recuperate physically, medically, psychologically and emotionally. Although some flexibility might be acceptable over the full package of measures not being in place, the contrast between what the Act envisages and what these victims experienced is shameful,” the GHRA said.
The GHRA does not believe that a victim-centred approach detracts from efficient prosecution.
“Confidentiality and respect for victims’ needs ensures, in fact, a more reliable prosecution process. The likely confrontation in the interior between the girls and the people who tried to prevent or were hostile to their removal is almost inevitable. However, such confrontations are explicitly forbidden in the Sexual Offences Act because they contribute significantly to undermining victims’ cooperating in prosecutions,” the statement said.
The SOA Clause 42 (1) states “Where a report is made of an offence under this Act, at no point during the investigation shall the complainant be required to recount the complaint or any part of it, in the presence of the accused, unless the complainant wants to do so.”
Additionally, the SOA Clause 42 (2) states “The complainant shall not be required to view or be in the presence of any person referred to in the complaint as having perpetrated any offence under this Act save for the purposes of an identification parade and then only: by way of audio-visual link; by way of a two way mirror; in any other manner sensitive to the complainant’s well-being.”
The GHRA stated that the Combating of Trafficking in Persons Act 2005 (Clause 15.1) further states “the identity of the victim and the victim’s family should be kept confidential by ensuring that names and identifying information of the victim and victim’s family are not released to the public, including by the defendant.”
The GHRA said that the most disturbing feature of this incident is the fact that three of the children are minors and the fourth “barely” an adult. “The casual cruelty and ineptitude of Guyanese officials responsible for protection of young girls and women do not augur well for mining areas. There is a gulf between progressive laws and a ramshackle public service that can only be bridged effectively, particularly in hinterland areas, by systematic and integrated engagement of civil society organizations,” the GHRA said. “Until the relevant Ministries acknowledge this reality the inter-action of minors and miners in the foreseeable future will continue to work against the interests of children,” it added.
