Empowering victims: Addressing right to compensation in trafficking cases

In the conventional criminal justice system, victims often wait for years to obtain a court decision, which may or may not include compensation. Restorative justice system offers a more effective alternative as it focuses on understanding the extent of harm caused by the crime and tries to amend the damage rather than only punishing the offender. Restitution is one of the key components of restorative justice which seeks to compensate victims to restore their well-being. This is particularly significant in cases where victims need immediate financial assistance for medical services, transportation, childcare and other projected needs as a result of the offenses. Restitution aims to minimise the suffering of the victims as much as possible, though trauma and its effects can never be undone with compensation.
In Bangladesh, however, a crime victim has to go through complex procedures to obtain compensation. As per section 545 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, court has the power  to impose a monetary fine on the criminals either as the sole punishment or in addition to other penalties and it can direct the whole or a part of it to be paid to the victim. However, in practice, the judges very rarely exercise this discretionary power, and even when they do, the amount of compensation is often found insufficient. Moreover, if the offender is not apprehended, the victim has no route to compensation.
Converesely, in our neighboring country, India, the scope of compensation for crime victims has been broadened by the insertion of section 357A in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, which is known as the Victim Compensation Scheme. This scheme allows the crime victims to submit a request for additional compensation if they are dissatisfied with the already awarded amount of compensation, even in cases where the offenders cannot be identified or located.
To assess the situation in Bangladesh, particularly regarding the scope of compensation for victims of human trafficking, it is necessary to understand the notion of human trafficking in line with its domestic legal framework. Under section 3(1) of the Prevention and Suppression of Human Trafficking Act 2012, human trafficking is defined as the act of selling or buying, recruiting or receiving, deporting or transferring, sending or confining or harboring any person, either inside or outside Bangladesh, for the purposes of sexual or labor exploitation or any other form of exploitation or oppression. This crime is committed through the use of threat, force, deception, or abuse of the victim’s socio-economic or environmental vulnerability, or financial inducement.
Aligning with the severity of the offences, this Act prescribes fines ranging from Tk. 20,000 to Tk. 5 lacs as well as various terms of imprisonment till imprisonment for life, upon conviction of human trafficking and ancillary offences. For instance, section 6 of this Act criminalises the offence of human trafficking  by imposing a punishment from 5 years to life imprisonment, along with a fine of at least Tk. 50,000. Again, to point out international obligation, Bangladesh is a party to various international conventions, including the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children (Palermo Protocol). These international instruments encourage the availability of compensation and support to the human trafficking victims.
Furthermore, according to the Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report, 2024 of the US State Department, although the Prevention and Suppression of Human Trafficking Act mandated a victim compensation fund back in the year 2012, the government has allocated funds for this purpose for the very first time in 2024. Indeed, compensation from this fund is rarely awarded, and out-of-court settlements between victims and traffickers are common. Most of these settlements require victims to withdraw their testimony, effectively eliminating the probability of the trafficker to face criminal conviction.
Despite these challenges, a recent judgement has set a noteworthy precedent for victim compensation in human trafficking cases. In the Human Trafficking Case No. 01 of 2022, corresponding to the General Registered case No. 151 of 2019 of Durgapur, Rajshahi, the Human Trafficking Prevention and Suppression Tribunal of Rajshahi has granted compensation to the victim. Brief facts of the case are: in 2019, the victim, a 16-year-old student of Class 9 at a High School of Durgapur Thana, was deceived by an organised gang of human traffickers. The traffickers deceived her with a false promise of marriage and took her to India for their financial gain. After about one and a half months of this incident, victim’s father was informed by a police station of Malda, India that his daughter was in police custody. Consequently, this case was filed by victim’s father in the Human Trafficking Prevention and Suppression Tribunal of Rajshahi.
The issues raised in this case were, whether the charges brought against the accused were proven beyond every reasonable doubt and if they were liable to be punished under the Act. The tribunal, after hearing both parties and considering facts and circumstances of the case, passed the decision in favor of the victim on 24 January 2024. The traffickers were sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Tk. 20,000 each under Section 8 for instigating and conspiring to traffic the victim. Shridam Karmaker was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Tk. 1 lac under Section 6 for committing human trafficking against the victim. The judge declared that the total fine of Tk. 1 lac 60 thousand be handed over to the victim. 
In essence, while the recent judgment in Rajshahi represents an optimistic step towards ensuring compensation for human trafficking victims in Bangladesh, significant challenges remain. In order to restore the rights of victims, it is vital to strengthen the implementation of existing laws and to ensure that compensation mechanisms are more accessible and effective to the victims.
The writer is Lecturer in Law, East West University.