Currently they are charged with two offences. In the case of trafficking, the advantage is that we do not have to prove prostitution or knowledge of prostitution. You have to understand that traffickers adapt. They will use middle people to train the girls, break them, in order to avoid this burden associated with procuring. They simply say that they were not aware of the service that had been provided, and as a result we cannot lay any procuring charges.
In the case of trafficking, however, when the trafficker has been directly involved in the activity of forcing the individual and of receiving money, we no longer have to deal with this burden. That is the distinction that I can make.
I would now like to respond to your question about presumption in the case of minors. Procuring applies to both minors and individuals who have attained the age of majority. No distinction is drawn, insofar as an individual who is regularly with a prostitute is deemed to be living off the proceeds of the prostitution.
However, presumption is not tantamount to evidence. That is what we need to understand. This is not something that enables us to close the investigation. Our investigation does not become less complicated. That does not mean that we can decide to work less hard.