IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

The Level Of Certainty: Evidence And Reasons For Decisions In Human Trafficking Crimes

Listed author(s):
  • Elek BALÁZS

    (Judge – Debrecen High Court of Appeal. Assistant professor, Debrecen University, Faculty of Law, HUNGARY)

Registered author(s):

    In the course of criminal proceedings, all means of evidence specified by law and all evidentiary procedures may be used without restriction in Hungary. However there are two general features in the area of evidence in Human Trafficing crimes. There is a shortage of evidence, and there is no perfect evidence that is to be accepted unconditionally. Trafficing means much more than the organised movement of persons for profit, and we must distinguish trafficing from migrant smuggling. In the criminal procedure this cause difficulties in the demonstration. The criminal procedure can be interpreted as a procedure from evidence minimum to evidence maximum. Means of evidence are the testimony of the witness –who may be the victim of the crime-, the expert opinion, physical evidence, documents and pleadings of the defendant. Evidence provided through international or Europen Union legal aid also can be used as evidence. The evidence obtained in legal cooperation with the Europen Union is often only indirect pieces of evidence. Alone these evidence are not necessarily conclusive, but can be a cruical link between other evidence to create a whole. We also must deal with the question of secret evidence, and the opportunity of video and telephone conference in the criminal cases of human trafficing. Finally in a human trafficing case, several problems of international legal aid and assistance emerged, so it is worthy to conclude the moral of this criminal investigation and procedure.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by Petru Maior University, Faculty of Economics Law and Administrative Sciences and Pro Iure Foundation in its journal Curentul Juridic, The Juridical Current.

    Volume (Year): 44 (2011)
    Issue (Month): (March)
    Pages: 92-105

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:pmu:cjurid:v:44:y:2011:p:92-105
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pmu:cjurid:v:44:y:2011:p:92-105. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Bogdan Voaidas)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.