A researcher who conducted fieldwork in Sweden over four years with sex workers, Dr Jay Levy, conversely notes the 'critical' evaluation was mandated not to actually criticise the law, and so was biased from the outset: "any possible evidence pointing to a failure of the 1999 legislation was deliberately sidelined in the report’s directive. This specified that irrespective of the report’s findings, the sexköpslagen should not be questioned or critiqued, since a “starting point for our work has been that the purchase of sexual services is still to be criminalized“ [...] That the evaluation purports to be a critical evaluation thus appears to be a contradiction in terms. However, as the report functions for all intents and purposes only to affirm the success of the sexköpslagen, it may be (erroneously) held by some who are invested in the success of the sex purchase law to be indicative of its positive outcomes". Levy quotes several interviewees' respondents to the report, with a Senior Advisor Regarding Prostitution for the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare noting that: “it’s extremely poor, and it’s full of contradictions and inconsistencies [...] report does specifically specify that the starting point is that the sex purchase law should remain. If that’s the starting point, then how can you expect a report to not be biased?… of course that’s another way of saying that, no matter what you find doing this work, should there be, you know, extreme violations of human rights of sex workers… it does not matter, the law should remain”.