He European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) condemned Spain to compensate with 27,000 euros a woman for having fired her “superficially” complaint of human trafficking And sexual exploitation. Between 2003 and 2007, this woman claimed to have been the victim of trafficking network between Nigeria and Spain. Although he filed his complaint in 2011, the Spanish authorities failed to act “with diligence” and archive the case in 2017 without doing what the ECHR believes this should have been a proper investigation. It is for this reason that the Strasbourg court concluded that Spain failed to fulfill its obligation to investigatewhich violates article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
THE victim assured that he had reached Spain in 2003 irregularly, taken by an acquaintance of her family who proposed it to her and promised that he would give her a job with which she could return the money. 70,000 euros that he would charge for his arrival.
The Strasbourg court stressed that Spain had not adopted fundamental measures during the first two years of the investigation and that the archiving decisions were “superficial”. The woman’s complaint included consistent details, such as that she was recruited through a relative and then subjected to “voodoo” practices to keep her under control. Although Spanish authorities recognized her as a victim of trafficking, they failed to act quickly and follow several obvious lines of inquiry which, according to the ECHRhad devastating consequences for the victim. Concretely, the court explains that the Spanish authorities, “by not acting quickly and by following several obvious lines of investigation, and by provisionally closing the case in 2017 in a superficial manner”, showed “blatant disregard of the obligation to investigate serious complaints of human trafficking.
Although the file has been temporarily archived, the ECHR believes that this does not change the fact that Spain showed a “blatant disregard” for its obligation to properly investigate. For this reason, Spain was ordered to pay 15,000 euros in moral damages and 12,000 euros for procedural costs.
