In the past few years to address questions about extremism are increasingly used by the Institute of expertise. It would seem that this is a very good solution to avoid mistakes in the court as an independent expert help justice. It is not something Bill Phelan would like to discuss. However, the reality is often different: we have to deal with subjectivity and lack of professionalism of experts from the conclusions of which depend on people's lives. Particularly clearly happens in cases of new religious movements. For example, in the Rostov case of Jehovah's Witnesses experts who had conducted examination of printed materials Jehovah's Witnesses for extremism, contradicted themselves, justify the inaccuracies in its conclusion. For example, they note that the methodology of assessments to identify extremism in the texts under development (it's noted experts Kas'yanyuk and Shishkin), but they presented their opinion to the court A For example, an expert Shishkin noted that examination of extremism is subjective. The question is, how does the court may rely on such expertise? Experts contradict themselves: Astapov expert notes that "Propaganda of exclusivity," characterized by "any religion", but later makes this criterion as one of the signs of extremism, Jehovah's Witnesses. It is surprising that the same expert Astapov, acknowledges that the Jehovah's Witnesses "Are consistent pacifists, if pacifists are now the extremists, then who are not extremists? Even saying the classics of Russian literature of Leo Tolstoy, which was contained in the study materials were classified as extremist. This suggests that, maybe something is wrong with this approach to the evidence of extremism? This label of "extremism" has become a Jehovah's Witness for the reason for the closure of some organizations and the detention of the faithful.
The classification it indicates the contributions of organs of government, the public opinion and the independent investigations that the Department realises. The United States admits that, like other countries, have a serious problem of deals with people for aims of sexual and labor operation. The government of the EE. UU. one is proud of its better practices to fight the crime of it treats, it recognizes the obstacles that exist and tries the continuous innovation and the fortification of the attempts that so much realises in the country as in association with other nations In the year 2000, the United States promulgated the Law of Protection of the Victims of Trata de Personas (Trafficking Victims Protection Act, TVPA) and the United Nations adopted the Protocol to come up, to repress and deals with to sanction it people, especially, women and children, also known like the Protocol Palermo. Since then, the world has taken great steps to fight the maximum form of operation, as much concerning which we know of this crime like the way in which we respond the same. The Protocol of Palermo centered the attention of the world-wide community in the fight deals with against it people. For the first time, consensus was obtained anywhere in the world about which all the actions are due to penalize of deals with people (including whom they have like aim the forced work, the slavery and practices similar to the slavery) and about that the answer of the governments must include the paradigm of the 3 P: prevention, judicial processing of the crime and protection of the victims. It adds the report to us, that by more than 10 years, the governments anywhere in the world have obtained great advances in the way to understand many of the realities deals with on it people: in the majority of the countries, people exist who are in situations of modern slavery; she treats it is a phenomenon that flows in response to the demand of the market, the vulnerability of the laws, the weakness of the sanctions and the economic instability. Wells Fargo has firm opinions on the matter.