Key NHRCK Activities from a Thai agency, her passport was confiscated, and she was exposed to conditions that forced her into prostitution. The Commission concluded that, because the victim had little access to the Korean judicial system and was part of a group that entailed a high risk of being sexually exploited under the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children should have preceded any investigations. It also found that interrogating the victim on her prostitution charges in an open multiple-bed hospital room infringed upon her human rights by causing feelings of shame. Part 1 Introduction through human trafficking, actions to identify whether she was a victim of human trafficking Considering that the migrant woman was lacking social ties and had little access to the Korean judicial system, the Commission also made issue with the fact that no action was taken to have the victim’s trusted agent sit in with her during investigation and get her protection by informing her ■ ‌Human rights infringement caused by police failure to notify plaintiff of reason for deciding to not send case to prosecution On July 22, the Commission concluded that the police not informing the petitioner of the reason why his case was not sent to the public prosecutor’s office based on a decision to not do so Part 2 Key NHRCK Activities of the relevant regulations on the ability to meet and communicate with the consular office. following investigation is a violation of the petitioner’s right to know. It recommended the chief petitionee (21-jinjeong-0122500). Further to adjustments made in investigative authorities between the police and the prosecutor, the police gained the authority to conclude primary investigations by deciding to not send cases to the prosecution based on investigation results. The Criminal Procedure Act that captures the relevant provisions came into effect on January 1, 2021. If it decides to do so, the police is required to notify the plaintiffs in writing the intent and reason for not sending their case to the prosecution. In the petitioner’s case, however, the petitionee only stated that “with regards the fraud charges brought against A, etc., the case was investigated and the decision made to send some of the charges against A to the prosecution, but to not do so for B, C, and D,” in the notification to the petitioner. The Commission concluded that this information alone, which was provided in an enclosure, was not sufficient for the petitioner to understand the minimum matter of facts or 103 Part 3 Appendices of the police station in question to inform the petitioner of the reason and to give a warning to the