closed the case for lack of evidence. It is the view of the Complainant that the police in the Respondent State did not conduct as effective investigation, because they failed to find the forensic evidence in the devices which were availed to them; urrendered the evidence to one of the traffickers in error; threatened her with criminal sanctions; unlawfully detained the victim for four weeks; and prematurely closed the investigation. The Complainants submit that the Respondent State had not opened a docket by 30 January 2020. 113. The Complainants also aver that there is further evidence of ineffective investigation by the Respondent State in that the Case file was only transmitted to the Prosecutor General by the Police in 2020, after this Communication had been submitted to the Commission. Furthermore, the Complainant submits that the Prosecutor General of amibia concluded that there were variou gaps in the investigation carried out by the Police and that there was a prirna fade case of human trafficking to be prosecuted. According to _the Complainant, the Prosecutor General wrote to the Inspector of Police on the 14th of April 2020, giving guidance on investigations that needed to be carried out on the case. The Complainants also take issue with the fact that the victim was booked as an illegal immigrant and placed in a pre-deportation facility at Klein Windhoek. The Complainants aver that this determination was unjustified, given all the evidence demonstrating that she was ind ed a victim of Trafficking In Persons (T.I.P). 114. The Complainants also submit to the Commission that the Maputo Protocol also places a positive obligation on States to eliminate the root causes of violence, and to provide appropriate remedies to women and girls whose rights have been violated. They contend that the Maputo Protocol in Article 4(2)(C) places a positive obligation on States to study the causes of violence and promote awareness and other measures to eliminate these causes. 115. The Complainants further advance that in addition to the inhuman, cruel and degrading treatment, the victim was also a victim of human trafficking in contravention of Article 4(2)(G) of the Maputo Protocol. They refer to the Palermo Protocol 41 which, they argue provides the internationa , ~ ·sed definition of human trafficking. The Palermo Protocol defin human tr recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, 01; receipt ofpe son improper means (such as force, abduction, fraud, or coer'don 1 fot , ............r,.-."r purpose 41 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Espec the United ations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime; November 2000. 24 1~""'"':\:> pplementing n 55/25 of 15