Hvorfor er antallet af retsforfølgelser for menneskehandel til tvangsarbejde (og arbejdsudnyttelse) så lavt i Danmark?

Translated title of the contribution: Why is there a low number of prosecutions of trafficking in human beings for forced labor (labor exploitation) in Denmark?

Sophia Dørffer Hvalkof, Marlene Spanger

Research output: Book/ReportReportCommissioned

Abstract

This report is part of the project Competence building, Assistance provision and Prosecution of labour exploitation cases in the Baltic Sea Region (CAPE). With focus on the case of Denmark, this report explores why there is a low number of prosecutions for trafficking in human beings (THB) for forced labour (labour exploitation) in the country.

Anti-trafficking legislation was introduced into the Danish criminal code in 2002 to align the national legislation with the international framework following the UN’s establishment of the Palermo protocol in 2000. Up until 2011, initiatives to combat human trafficking in Denmark primarily focused on combatting trafficking for prostitution (Lisborg 2012). Following the government’s national action plan in 2011, trafficking for forced labour became one of the areas of focus.

Following an overview of the national anti-trafficking legislation framework, this report presents an analysis of factors that have contributed to the low number of prosecutions for trafficking to forced labour in Denmark. We present an overview of all court cases that have involved a prosecution for trafficking to forced labour under section 262a of the Danish criminal code. In Denmark there have been four prosecutions for trafficking to forced labour, but of these none has led to a conviction for that crime. In two of the four cases, usury (from section 282 of the Danish criminal code) has been applied to convict the accused.

Based on the overview of relevant legislation and court cases, we identify four key tendencies that have contributed to the low number of prosecutions for trafficking to forced labour in Denmark:

1) Evidence for all three elements (action, means, purpose) under section 262a is more difficult to provide than under section 282 (usury);

2) The definition and interpretation of ‘forced’ used in the court cases prioritises certain measurable identifiers (such as possession of identification documents) which can downplay factors such as power relations and socioeconomic aspects;

3) The victims’ testimony is often the most important evidence in a trafficking case, but there can be a lack of incentives for the victims to cooperate with authorities;

4) The police have not prioritised this type of crime, and the overall cooperation between Danish authorities within the field of anti-trafficking is affected by different approaches and priorities in terms of identifying the victims.

We have provided a checklist with the overall points from the report (see Appendix A).
Translated title of the contributionWhy is there a low number of prosecutions of trafficking in human beings for forced labor (labor exploitation) in Denmark?
Original languageDanish
PublisherCompetence building, Assistance provision and Prosecution of labour exploitation cases in the Baltic Sea Region (CAPE)
Number of pages42
Commissioning bodyCouncil of the Baltic Sea States
Publication statusPublished - 2022

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Why is there a low number of prosecutions of trafficking in human beings for forced labor (labor exploitation) in Denmark?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this