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

98
<strong>Child</strong> PornograPhy First report oF the Dutch NatioNal rapporteur
Meldpunt Kinderporno: government or no government?
The years between 2002 and 2005 were characterised by a discussion about the Meldpunt Kinderporno op
Internet [the Hotline Combating <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Pornography</strong> on the Internet]. 50 A parliamentary question was
asked as to whether the responsibility for a hotline combating child pornography should not be borne
by the government. 51 The Hotline, launched in 1996 by Internet Service Providers, was and is a private
foundation. 52 In 2005, the Ministers for Justice and Economic Affairs announced that they were launching
their own Meldpunt Cybercrime, [Cyber Crime Reporting Website], alongside the Hotline Combating
<strong>Child</strong> <strong>Pornography</strong> on the Internet. This became operational in February 2006. Citizens could report
child abuse material as well as terrorism to this hotline. The Hotline Combating <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Pornography</strong> on
the Internet also remained operational. By that time, citizens had two hotlines at their disposal to which
they could report. 53
Evaluation of the sexual offences legislation
In 2006, an evaluation of the tightened sexual offences legislation was published; this evaluation had
been carried out on behalf of the Ministry of Justice. 54 The evaluation report discussed the tightened
sexual offences legislation in general. <strong>Child</strong> pornography formed a part of this.
Evaluation of the sexual offences legislation
In 2006, the amendments to the sexual offences legislation from 2002 were evaluated, which led
to the following findings. Sentences for virtual child abuse material were hardly ever imposed,
doubts arose as to the legitimacy of the criminalisation of this practice, and a lack of clarity
emerged as to what exactly constituted ‘virtual child pornography’. 55 Cases involving victims
whose apparent age was between 16 and 18 years were not being pursued. This led to the question
of whether this group was unprotected. 56 ICT developments led to problems for detection.
Digital methods of detection were necessary in order to supplement the traditional methods.
The level of knowledge possessed by the police and the Public Prosecution Service, as well as
the judiciary, needed to be increased. 57 The number of cases reported increased. The likelihood
of prosecution and trial for offences that fell under Article 140b of the Dutch Criminal Code increased.
There were fewer decisions not to prosecute by reason of unlikelihood of conviction,
and fewer acquittals. A number of problems in terms of evidence, such as the requirement that
the victims must be apparently under sixteen years of age, were solved by increasing the age. The
general conclusion was that the revised child pornography stipulation had reduced problems in
50 Van Koppen, 2009.
51 Question from Member Gerkens (Socialist Party) to the ministers for Interior and Kingdom Relations
and Justice about a child pornography reporting centre. Parliamentary Papers II 2003/04, Appendix 2156.
52 See §3.3.3.1 for more information about the Meldpunt Kinderporno op Internet.
53 Van Koppen, 2009. See also §3.3.3.2 – box text: Meldpunt Kinderporno op Internet compared with Meldpunt
Cybercrime.
54 Lünnemann et al., 2006. The investigation was carried out by the Verwey-Jonker Institute on behalf
of the Scientific Research and Documentation Centre and the Ministry of Justice. The period of the
investigation began in June 2005 and ended in March 2006.
55 Lünnemann et al., 2006.
56 Lünnemann et al., 2006, p.156.
57 Lünnemann et al., 2006, p.157.