H Human trafficking is a serious crime that has a widespread impact on victims, including repeated victimization. one important aspect of victim protection is the fulfillment of restitution as a victim\'s right. however, in decision number 7283 k/pid.sus/2024, this right was not granted despite the fact that the restitution provisions in law number 21 of 2007 on the eradication of human trafficking crimes are an absolute or inherent right of the victim. this case thus reflects the inadequate legal protection provided to victims. the research questions in this study include how restitution should be obtained by victims in decision number 7283 k/pid.sus/2024 and whether the failure to fulfill restitution as a victim\'s right can be classified as a form of secondary victimization. this study uses normative legal research with a descriptive nature based on secondary data as the main data and supported by interview results. data collection was conducted through literature review and analyzed qualitatively, using deductive reasoning to draw conclusions. the research findings indicate that according to law no. 21 of 2007 on the eradication of human trafficking, restitution must be provided to victims without the need for a request. the use of perma no. 1 of 2022 by the court in human trafficking cases is inappropriate because law no. 21 of 2007 on the eradication of human trafficking crimes is specific, while perma is general. the failure to provide restitution constitutes secondary victimization, where victims suffer further harm due to the legal system\'s failure to protect their rights.