VZCZCXRO6922
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDBU RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA
RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHBM #0047/01 0121404
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 121404Z JAN 07
FM AMEMBASSY BUCHAREST
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5843
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BUCHAREST 000047 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EUR/NCE - AARON JENSEN 
STATE FOR G/TIP - MEGAN HALL 
STATE FOR S/CRS 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR OPDAT AND OJP 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR FBI OFFICE OF VICTIM ASSISTANCE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PHUM KJUS PREL SOCI RO
SUBJECT: ANTI-TRAFFICKING BEST PRACTICES: IMPROVING 
VICTIM/WITNESS COORDINATION 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary:  In continuing efforts to work with the 
Romanian Government on Trafficking in Persons issues, one 
"best practice" established by Embassy BucharestQs 
Department of Justice office (RLA) has been the creation of 
a victim/witness coordination program.  The Romanian 
National Anti-Trafficking Agency (ANAT) has enthusiastically 
adopted this program and has now begun implementing it nationwide. 
 Successful prosecutions for 
trafficking in Romania are heavily contingent on obtaining 
the cooperation of victims, and in the past, the Romanian 
legal system did little to facilitate the testimony of 
witnesses in legal proceedings.   Cases against traffickers 
were frequently dropped for lack of testimony or evidence. 
With the establishment of ANAT in December 2005, RLA found 
a partner within the Romanian government that was willing 
to work to improve the coordination between the Romanian 
legal system and victims and witnesses and to ensure that 
they remained willing to testify in court over the long 
haul.  Embassy RLA and ANAT held the first training seminar 
in November 2006 and have scheduled three follow-up 
seminars for 2007.   This is the first in a series of 
cables on "best practices" derived from Embassy Bucharest's 
efforts to work against Trafficking in Persons with the 
cooperation of the Romanian National Anti-Trafficking 
Agency (ANAT), other branches of the GOR, anti-TIP NGOs and 
other organizations.   End Summary. 
 
How TIP Traffickers Can Go Unpunished in Romania 
--------------------------------------------- ------------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU)  In November 2004, a senior Romanian prosecutor 
responsible for investigating organized crime reported that 
prosecutors lost contact with 40 percent of all TIP victims 
after their first interview.  As a result, although 
Romanian law enforcement institutions continued to improve 
their ability to investigate TIP offenses, this progress 
was not necessarily reflected in the statistics for 
successful prosecution of TIP offenders.  Other 
complicating factors affecting the rate of success in TIP 
cases included the length of time that cases take to reach 
a final verdict (which requires the exhaustion of all 
appellate remedies) and imprecise statistics on the number 
of cases where prosecutors determined that the victim was 
either unavailable or insufficiently reliable to proceed 
with the case.   However, the most significant challenge in 
the prosecution of TIP cases was to maintain the 
cooperation of victims throughout the lengthy trial 
process.  Advice from internationally produced manuals such 
as the UNDP Best Practices Manual on TIP assumes the 
existence of adequate shelters for TIP victims, with TIP 
victims  generally considered to be the responsibility of 
law enforcement until they are placed in a shelter.  In 
practice, the overwhelming majority of identified TIP 
victims in Romania have chosen not to accept shelter 
services.  State-sponsored TIP shelters in Romania assisted 
fewer than forty-five adult victims between the enactment 
of legislation mandating their creation in 2001 and January 
of 2006.  By contrast, in 2005 alone, the Ministry of 
Interior reported identifying 1,491 adult women who were 
victims of TIP offenses. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) The low rate of usage of TIP shelters in Romania 
does not appear to be related to the quality of the 
facilities or the adequacy of their services.  Although the 
quality of state sponsored TIP shelters in Romania is 
mixed, newly built shelters with state-of-the-art 
facilities have not been substantially more successful at 
attracting victims than shelters with more modest 
accommodations.  Although NGO shelters with a focus on 
long-term rehabilitation continue to attract young victims, 
adult victims do not appear to be attracted to the 
short-term, emergency services for which most state 
shelters are tailored.  There may be practical reasons for 
this stemming from RomaniaQs role as a source country. 
Victims returning to Romania as part of a formal 
repatriation process are likely to have already spent time 
in a shelter in their country of destination.  They may not 
be interested in continuing or repeating that experience 
following their return to Romania.  Victims who return to 
Romania on their own volition are likely to have already 
located a place to stay by the time that they are 
identified as victims through follow-up investigations by 
law enforcement.  They thus may see little benefit in 
disrupting their status quo arrangement for the short-term 
 
BUCHAREST 00000047  002 OF 003 
 
 
benefits of an emergency shelter.  Regardless of the 
reasons, shelters have not proven an effective strategy for 
maintaining the cooperation of TIP victims in Romania. 
 
¶4.  (SBU)  Since most TIP victims are not under GOR or NGO 
protection while legal proceedings are underway, another 
option would be sustained contact by the prosecutor or 
continuing legal assistance through court-appointed 
counsel.  In practice, however, this is not a sustainable 
solution.  Prosecutors in Romania are dissuaded by their 
role as independent magistrates from identifying themselves 
with victims in cases.  Once an investigation is complete, 
the investigating prosecutor has no further role in the 
case.  A separate prosecutor appears at trial to serve as a 
liaison between the court and the prosecutors office.  This 
prosecutor is a procedural expert who typically has no 
contact with the victim and little direct role in calling 
and questioning witnesses.  As a result, victims frequently 
receive no direct advice or encouragement about their 
testimony from prosecutors.  Court appointed counsel have 
an equally limited role in encouraging victims to maintain 
their cooperation throughout the trial.  In practice, the 
appointment of counsel is for a limited period, often just 
for a specific interview or court appearance.  In the 
majority of cases there is no continuity of counsel from 
appearance to appearance and no ongoing representation 
between appearances. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) During the time that the legal proceedings take 
place, TIP victims are vulnerable to a number of pressures 
that discourage them from testifying, including pressure 
from family and friends who are either ambivalent toward 
the criminal justice system or openly hostile toward it. 
In some cases defendants offer bribes in exchange for the 
victims' changing their testimony or employ threats of 
retaliation if victims persist in testifying.   Victims 
often lack a sophisticated understanding of the criminal 
justice system, including the processes involved in the 
investigation and trial.  A victim who persists in 
testifying is likely to encounter a crowded courtroom with 
few familiar faces.  Neither the prosecutor who 
investigated the case nor the law enforcement officer who 
initially interviewed the victim will be present.  Cases 
are often subject to delay, which can be sought by 
defendants for tactical reasons.  Thus, a victimQs initial 
resolve to testify can be broken down through an increasing 
sense that the system does not have their interests at 
heart. 
 
Getting Victims to Testify, Keeping them in Court 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
 
¶6.  (SBU) In response to these circumstances, Embassy 
Bucharest RLA has encouraged the development of a system 
for coordinating contacts between victims and the courts. 
Coordinators in this system have four responsibilities: 
(1) to maintain updated contact information for the victim 
and to provide the victim with information about the status 
of the case; (2) to provide the victim with general 
information about the court system in order to demystify 
the trial process and make it less intimidating; (3) to 
provide the victim with logistical assistance in getting to 
court; and (4) to provide the victim with information about 
services available regionally.  RLA advocacy for this 
system stemmed from an assessment conducted by U.S. 
victimsQ specialists in 2004.  This was followed by a study 
tour of state and federal victim/witness programs in the 
U.S. by a team of Romanian justice officials representing 
prosecutors, judges, law enforcement, and the Ministry of 
Justice.  The RLA has continued to reinforce the theme of 
victim/witness coordination through a number of additional 
programs that gave rise to a discussion of the TIP 
phenomenon or of victimsQ issues generally.  These have 
included judicial symposiums and specialized workshops on 
pretrial services, supervised release, and victim impact 
statements.  RLA efforts culminated in the inclusion of 
victim/witness coordination in the National 
Anti-Trafficking Strategy in the summer of 2006 and a 
decision by ANAT in September to adopt the initiative as 
one of its priorities. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) ANAT was created by a Government Decision in 
December of 2005.  It was created as a "coordinating 
agency" under the authority of the Romanian Interior 
 
BUCHAREST 00000047  003 OF 003 
 
 
Ministry.  Its responsibilities include coordinating the 
fight against TIP;  coordinating the collection of data on 
the TIP phenomenon; and monitoring resources available to 
TIP victims.  ANATQs President, Dan Licsandru, was 
appointed in March of 2006, with the agency becoming 
operational in May.  Licsandru had previously served as the 
Chief of International Coordination for the National 
Anti-Drug Agency, and visited the U.S. as a participant in 
the Department's International Visitors Program.  ANAT 
oversaw the creation of a new National Anti-TIP Strategy, 
which gave rise to discussions with the Embassy RLA about 
the potential benefits of improving victim/witness 
coordination.  Following Licsandru's decision in September 
2006 to adopt the project, Licsandru designated Diana 
Tudorache--a psychologist who previously worked with IOM in 
Kosovo--to manage the program. 
 
¶8.  (SBU)  In November 2006, Embassy RLA sponsored the 
first of a series of programs on victim/witness 
coordination, featuring Heather Cartwright, the chief of 
the victim/witness coordination unit at the U.S. AttorneyQs 
Office for the District of Washington.  Cartwright 
participated in the initial assessment of victim 
coordination issues in TIP cases in February 2004, 
returning in November to participate in a seminar in Galati 
to promote the new unit's development by ANAT.  The seminar 
was attended by 70 justice officials from territorial 
offices in Eastern Romania between Constanta and Botosani. 
The seminar included participation from Traian Gherasim, a 
Senior Judge in the Criminal Section of the High Court of 
Cassation and Justice.  Judge Gherasim was a participant in 
the RLA-sponsored study tour on victim/witness coordination 
in September 2004.  The seminars were concluded with three 
sub-regional breakout groups that discussed specific 
measures for implementing victim/witness coordination in 
the regions of Constanta, Bacau, and Iasi. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) COMMENT:  From all reports, the program in Galati 
was welcomed by ANAT staff, especially those individuals 
who were designated as victim/witness coordinators.  This 
is buttressed by the fact that Embassy has fielded numerous 
requests from prosecutors and organized crime officers in 
Galati, Iasi, Timisoara, and Craiova in securing the 
assistance of ANAT victim/witness coordination services. 
Given that this concept is relatively novel to Romania, the 
program may encounter bureaucratic obstacles that will need 
to be overcome.  However, Embassy RLA anticipates that 
these obstacles are manageable and, in the end, the 
training will lead to more successfully prosecuted TIP 
cases.  Three additional training seminars in different 
regions of Romania are planned for fiscal year 2007  and 
readouts from these seminars will be reported Septel.  End 
Comment. 
 
TAPLIN