Procedural Irregularities and Evidentiary Difficulties in Foreign-Related Child Sexual Abuse Proceedings

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jel.202614215

Author(s)

Jia Guo*

Affiliation(s)

School of Criminology, People's Public Security University of China, Beijing, China *Corresponding Author

Abstract

Foreign-related child sexual abuse cases engage two sets of procedural requirements at once: those designed to protect minors and those applicable to foreign-related criminal proceedings. Existing scholarship has largely addressed these issues separately, with limited attention to how failures in coordinating them may, through the process of evidence formation, lead to evidentiary difficulties. This article argues that the principal challenge in such cases often lies not in determining the offense itself, but in the failure, at the earliest stage of investigation, to coordinate protective evidence-gathering, interpretation safeguards, and the timely preservation of objective evidence. Such failures may weaken the stability of the victim’s statements, undermine the reliability of interpreted interview records, and reduce the corroborative value of objective evidence. The article therefore proposes a response centered on procedural integration, emphasizing early identification of the case' dual procedural character, coordination of key evidentiary steps, and the reduction of procedural irregularities through checklist-based operations, inter-agency coordination, and earlier supervisory intervention.

Keywords

Foreign-Related Criminal Procedure; Child Sexual Abuse; Procedural Safeguards; Evidentiary Difficulties

References

[1]Heimer Maria, Näsman Elisabet, Palme Joakim. Vulnerable children's rights to participation, protection, and provision: The process of defining the problem in Swedish child and family welfare. Child & Family Social Work, 2018, 23(2):316-323. [2]Lyon Thomas D., Scurich Nicholas, Choi Karen, et al. “How did you feel?” Increasing child sexual abuse witnesses' production of evaluative information. Law and Human Behavior, 2012, 36(5):448-457. [3]Cross Theodore P., Jones Lisa M., Walsh Wendy A., et al. Child forensic interviewing in Children's Advocacy Centers: Empirical data on a practice model. Child Abuse & Neglect, 2007, 31(10):1031-1052. [4]La Rooy David J., Brubacher Sonja P., Aromäki-Stratos Anu, et al. The NICHD protocol: A review of an internationally-used evidence-based tool for training child forensic interviewers. Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, 2015, 1(2):76-89. [5]Fontes Lisa A., Tishelman Amy C. Language competence in forensic interviews for suspected child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 2016, 58:51-62. [6]Powell Martine B., Manger Bronwen, Dion Jacinthe, et al. Professionals’ perspectives about the challenges of using interpreters in child sexual abuse interviews. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2017, 24(1):90-101. [7]Dubowitz Howard, Finkel Martin, Feigelman Susan, et al. Initial medical assessment of possible child sexual abuse: History, history, history. Academic Pediatrics, 2024, 24(4):562-569. [8]Al-Jilaihawi Sarah, Borg Kevin, Maguire Sabine, et al. The value of paediatric assessment in historic child sexual abuse. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 2017, 102(6):550-555. [9]Brown Deirdre A., Lamb Michael E. Children as Witnesses: Remembering, Reporting, and Reliability. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 2025, 7:243-265. [10]ohnson Miriam S., Grung Rolf Magnus, Røed Ragnhild K., et al. Children’s Elaboration of Forensically Relevant Information in Response to Invitations: A National Study of Investigative Interviews With Preschool-Aged Abuse Victims. Child Maltreatment, 2026, 31(1):70-83. [11]Eilfgang Justine, Bayer Lennart, Cigelski Maike, et al. Collaboration between criminal justice and child protection in cases of child sexual abuse: Unveiling inhibiting and facilitating factors. Child Abuse Review, 2024, 33(2):e2868.