Child Pornography - Home | National Rapporteur on Trafficking in ...

288
<strong>Child</strong> PornograPhy First report oF the Dutch NatioNal rapporteur
In June 2011, the government stated in a letter to the House of Representatives that alternative methods
of settling cases must be sought. This mainly concerns the possession of child abuse material. The
distinction between the different forms of conduct is also relevant here. However, the rationale behind
abolishing or limiting the possibility to impose a community service order (‘stricter sentencing’) does
not seem to correspond with the alternative means of settlement which the Public Prosecution Service
and (also) the government are seeking, namely for those offences contrary to Article 240b of the Dutch
Criminal Code which are relatively mild cases such as the possession of a small quantity of material
where the suspect has not had any previous involvement with the judiciary in this field.
Not all child pornography cases are the same. Considering the scope and complexity of some cases, it is
necessary to consider whether this type of case should not also be made part of the remit of the <strong>National</strong>
Public Prosecutor’s Offices, so that the <strong>National</strong> Public Prosecutor’s Office can play a guiding role in
extensive, complex and cross-border cases and can also be involved in the development of innovative
detection methods. At present, the prosecution of child pornography offences in the first instance is
carried out exclusively at district court public prosecutor’s offices.
The handling of criminal cases raises a number of –relatively – new questions with regard to identified
victims of child pornography. This involves victims who are, by definition, particularly vulnerable, as
they are always children. There is currently no statutory or other provision to guarantee the complete
anonymity of victims in criminal proceedings in situations such as this, and as such to protect the identity
and personal details of victims. The way in which this can be achieved, without this being contrary
to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, must be investigated. An important question
is how justice can also be done to victims when it is assumed that they will become victim time and time
again as a result of the distribution of child abuse material (revictimisation), and what the consequences
would be if it were possible for them to receive compensation. This should be investigated in more detail.
The judge in the Amsterdam sexual abuse case is expected to deliver a judgment in the near future
regarding the question as to whether parents of victims who are minors should be able to exercise the
right to speak in criminal proceedings on behalf of their child. Since July 2011, the State Secretary for
Security and Justice has been preparing a legislative proposal in which the parents of children younger
than twelve can exercise the right to speak on behalf of their child. Whether parents, as such, should be
regarded as victims and whether they should, for example, also be granted the right to speak in this
capacity – and not just as a representative of their child – should also be investigated.
4.2.3.6 After-care and supervision
The opportunities to provide supervision that are presented in this report focus primarily on supervision
and after-care within the judicial framework. This framework also has its limits. In the event that a custodial
sentence is imposed with a term longer than four years, no part of this sentence may be suspended,
and special conditions cannot therefore be associated with this sentence. Supervision and after-care are
therefore also not possible in this form. Supervision of a convicted sex offender can also no longer be
provided after execution of the sentence. Unless placement under a hospital order has been imposed,
if a convicted perpetrator has served their sentence or if the conditional release period has expired,
it is not currently possible to enforce supervision and treatment within a judicial framework. From a
scientific point of view, it is regretted that there is no longer a compulsory framework for supervision
and treatment. It is also interesting that the State Secretary for Security and Justice has now indicated
the need to carry out research into the possibility of extending life-long supervision to the supervision
of sex offenders who have completed their course of treatment under a hospital order.