72 CASSELL ET AL. [Vol. 104 respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy,”°’ a broad right that does not appear to be directly linked to a filed court case. Similarly, the CVRA promises victims the “reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case.”**® In this section, the CVRA’s drafters appear to have eschewed a reference to court proceedings, using a broader term instead. Of course, a “case” can refer both to a judicial case before a court and an investigative case pursued by a law enforcement officer. It is common usage to say such things as, “The police officer investigated and solved the case.” Dictionary definitions of the word “case” support this varied interpretation.°° If there remained any doubts about whether the CVRA applies during the investigative part of the criminal justice process, two other provisions in the CVRA resolve them. The CVRA specifically directs that “[o|fficers and employees of the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the defection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in [the CVRA].’°° Of course, there would be no reason to direct that agencies involved in the “detection” and “investigation” of crime have CVRA obligations if the Act did not extend to pre-charging situations. Congress thus directly envisioned the victims’ rights law to apply during the “detection” and “investigation” phases of criminal cases. Similarly, the CVRA’s venue provision instructs that crime victims who seek to assert rights in pre-charging situations should proceed in the court where the crime was committed: “The rights described in subsection (a) [of the CVRA] shall be asserted in the district court in which a defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, if no prosecution is underway, in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred.”*! Here again, it