38/45 Report of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children - Note by the Secretariat
Document Type: Final Report
Date: 2018 May
Session: 38th Regular Session (2018 Jun)
Agenda Item: Item3: Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development
GE.18-07730(E)
Human Rights Council Thirty-eighth session
18 June–6 July 2018
Agenda item 3
Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights,
including the right to development
Report of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children
Note by the Secretariat
The Secretariat has the honour to transmit to the Human Rights Council the thematic
report of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children,
Maria Grazia Giammarinaro, prepared pursuant to Council resolution 35/5.
State efforts to govern international migration are often disconnected from the legal
obligation to identify victims of trafficking in human beings, creating negative
consequences for their protection and for the prosecution of traffickers. Unfortunately, the
international political agenda, which is focused on the prevention of irregular migration,
and the populist and xenophobic anti-migration movements in certain countries and
regions, are further encouraging a response to management of migration flows from a crime
prevention perspective, which does not place human rights protection at the centre.
In mixed migration movements, people are placed into different categories and
allocated different types of assistance accordingly. However, in practice it is challenging to
draw clear lines on the circumstances of each migratory journey, and identification through
rigid categories could lead to gaps in protection and assistance to victims.
In the present report, the Special Rapporteur analyses challenges in the
identification, referral and protection of victims and potential victims of trafficking in
persons in the context of mixed migration. Based on the findings and feedback of numerous
organizations, she offers recommendations to help States, international organizations and
civil society organizations adapt their responses to ensure the effective protection of victims
and potential victims of trafficking. These responses must be focused on the identification
of groups and persons who by their characteristics and circumstances are in a vulnerable
situation, regardless of the specific determination of their case. Activating protection
protocols at the outset of identification of vulnerabilities may be one of the most effective
ways to assist victims of trafficking and avoid the re-victimization, detention and
deportation of victims and potential victims of trafficking in persons.
United Nations A/HRC/38/45
Contents
Page
I. Activities of the mandate ............................................................................................................... 3
II. Methodology of the report ............................................................................................................. 3
III. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3
IV. International and policy framework .............................................................................................. 4
V. Early identification, referral and protection of victims or potential victims of trafficking
in persons in mixed migration movements .................................................................................... 5
A. Identification of victims or potential victims of trafficking at first arrival areas .................. 5
B. Identification in transit countries .......................................................................................... 9
C. Identification in countries of destination .............................................................................. 11
D. Impact of return procedures in identification of victims and potential victims of
trafficking in persons ............................................................................................................ 13
E. Role of referral mechanism in early identification and assistance to victims of
trafficking ............................................................................................................................. 14
VI. Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................... 16
A. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 16
B. Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 17
I. Activities of the mandate
1. On 5 September 2017, the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially
women and children participated as a panellist in the fifth informal thematic session of the
global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration, entitled “Smuggling of migrants,
trafficking in persons and contemporary forms of slavery, including appropriate
identification, protection and assistance to migrants and trafficking victims”. She made her
intervention during the panel discussion on “Appropriate identification, protection and
assistance to migrants and trafficking victims”.
2. On 10 October 2017, she presented a thematic report to the General Assembly at its
seventy-second session, with the Special Rapporteur on the sale and sexual exploitation of
children, including child prostitution, child pornography and other child sexual abuse
material. In their report, the Special Rapporteurs addressed the vulnerabilities of children to
sale, trafficking and other forms of exploitation in situations of conflict and humanitarian
crisis.
3. On 1 March 2018, the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons convened an
expert group meeting in Geneva on addressing trafficking in supply chains through
voluntary standards and multi-stakeholder initiatives. The meeting focused on the
enhancement of workers’ voices in the governance, monitoring and grievance mechanisms
of these initiatives and the active participation of workers within.
II. Methodology of the report
4. In order to gather first-hand information for the present report, on 12–13 October
2017, the Special Rapporteur conducted a thematic visit to Catania, Italy, to better
understand the identification procedures at disembarkation places. She also went to
Portugal on 1–2 February 2018, where she was informed of good practices for the
identification of victims of trafficking for labour exploitation. On 26 March 2018, she
exchanged information with the European Border and Coastguard Agency (FRONTEX) on
its role in identifying victims of trafficking at external European borders and related human
rights concerns. The present report is also based on submissions from partners and
stakeholders.
5. On the basis of the above inputs, the Special Rapporteur acknowledges the
inadequacy of the current screening tools and methodologies in effectively identifying
potential victims and indicators of vulnerability to trafficking. Responses to the call for
inputs were abundant, though geographically limited and predominately from Europe,
which reflects the current dialogue on migration. It is worrisome that the lack of responses
from certain regions might also be due to the shrinking of civil society space. The Special
Rapporteur is grateful to organizations that provided feedback to the report. She thanks the
Office of the Prosecutor in Catania, the Portuguese National Rapporteur on trafficking in
persons and FRONTEX for their role in organizing the three thematic visits, whose findings
have enriched the report.
III. Introduction
6. While a clear legal distinction between smuggling and trafficking has been defined
in the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women
and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational
Organized Crime (the Palermo Protocol), the differences between the two crimes are
increasingly blurred in mixed migration movements.
7. The Special Rapporteur considers that trafficking in persons, especially women and
children, is primarily a human rights violation, and often interlinked with mixed migration
movements, encompassing various categories of persons on the move, including refugees,
asylum seekers and migrants travelling, mostly in an irregular manner, along similar routes,
using similar means of travel, and for various and often interrelated reasons.1 People do not
necessarily enter mixed migration movements as trafficked persons, but might become
trafficked during their journey or when they reach a transit or destination country. Their
migration might have started out independently or using the services of a smuggler, but
then turned into trafficking at a later stage.
8. Challenges related to the identification and protection of victims of trafficking in
persons in the current migration context have not been adequately addressed either at the
national, regional or international levels, where Member States are currently negotiating a
global compact on refugees and a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration.
Specifically, the so-called migration “crisis” in Europe and elsewhere has exposed serious
protection gaps, and State responses demonstrate that the protection of victims or potential
victims of trafficking in persons is not often prioritized when countries face irregular
migration movements, and is geared towards responding to the needs of the victims of
particular categories (mostly the sexual exploitation of women and children).
9. Early identification is being defined as comprising both proactive informal processes
as well as a formal process of screening persons to detect indications of trafficking in
persons, or of vulnerabilities to trafficking and/or exploitation. Early identification should
not be regarded as a one-step process. Experience from the field has shown that victims
often do not come forward at first contact with assistance providers, much less at first
contact with law enforcement authorities, especially when they have suffered severe forms
of exploitation. Identification is possible when a safe space and a relationship of trust have
been created to allow victims to share a traumatizing experience. It is therefore difficult to
successfully identify victims of trafficking at arrival areas — such as disembarkation points
of search and rescue operations, hotspots or airports — as well as in transit countries, due to
little awareness of the indicators of trafficking in persons and of victims’ needs among first
responders, and an unwillingness from the potential victims themselves to be identified and
registered in a country that is not their intended country of destination.
IV. International and policy framework
10. Under the Palermo Protocol, States are required to prevent trafficking, to investigate
and prosecute traffickers and to assist and protect trafficked persons with full respect for
their human rights. A failure to identify a trafficked person correctly is likely to result in a
further denial of that person’s rights. In the Recommended Principles and Guidelines on
Human Rights and Human Trafficking of the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights, 2 States are therefore called upon to ensure that such
identification does take place. Similar obligations on the need to establish identification
guidelines and procedures are also enshrined in regional conventions.3
11. The Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocol on the sale of
children, child prostitution and child pornography prohibit trafficking in children for any
purpose. They call upon States to develop and adopt proactive identification measures for
the rapid identification of trafficked children and to establish the presumption that, pending
verification of their age, children should be treated as such.
12. In addition, the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967
Protocol provide for specific protection guarantees for asylum seekers and refugees, which
may include victims and potential victims of trafficking by prohibiting, inter alia, their
return or expulsion to the territories where their lives or freedom would be threatened on
account of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership to a particular
social group.4 Moreover, the obligation of States to identify and protect victims of forced
1 See A/HRC/29/38, para. 11.
2 Available at www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Traffickingen.pdf.
3 ASEAN Convention against Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children and the Council
of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.
4 See Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Guidelines on
International Protection No. 7 (2006), available at
labour was also clearly established in the Protocol to the International Labour Organization
Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). Under the Protocol, Member States are bound to
take effective measures for the identification, release, protection, recovery and
rehabilitation of all victims of forced or compulsory labour, as well as the provision of
other forms of assistance and support.
V. Early identification, referral and protection of victims or potential victims of trafficking in persons in mixed migration movements
A. Identification of victims or potential victims of trafficking at first
arrival areas
1. Identification during search and rescue operations and at disembarkation points
13. Since 2014, the Central Mediterranean route has been consistently considered as one
of the deadliest for migrants and refugees. It is significant to note that, in terms of the
proportion of rescues being undertaken in the Central Mediterranean area under the
coordination of the Italian Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre, non-governmental
organization (NGO) vessels rescued the most number of individuals.5
14. In the specific context of search and rescue operations, the role and activities of
NGOs in the Mediterranean have expanded and become specialized since 2014. While
attempting to reduce the number of deaths and to fill the gap left by European States in
complying with their international obligations, NGOs strive to save lives, despite their
scarcity of means. The pressure they face to sign a “code of conduct”6 that de facto requires
them to have a police presence on board their vessels, and the multiple attacks and
defamation campaigns they have faced, have drastically circumscribed the activities of
NGOs in the Mediterranean Sea, which is harmful for the protection of migrants.7 The role
of NGOs in search and rescue operations was further challenged in March 2018, when the
Open Arms, a vessel owned by the Spanish NGO Proactiva, was seized by prosecutorial
authorities in Catania and the NGO’s staff investigated on suspicion of promoting irregular
migration. The boat, however, was subsequently released by a judicial order, while the
investigation into the NGO’s activities continues.
15. While noting with appreciation the identification procedures established in
cooperation between the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the police and a
specialized team from the Prosecutor’s Office in Catania after disembarkation, which led to
better protection of sexually exploited children and a significant increase in prosecutions
related to trafficking cases, the Special Rapporteur underlines that a human rights approach
must be consistently applied across the whole spectrum of activities dealing with migration.
This implies that humanitarian action aimed at rescuing lives should never be undermined
or treated as promoting irregular migration.
www.unhcr.org/publications/legal/443b626b2/guidelines-international-protection-7-application-
article-1a2-1951-convention.html.
5 See www.guardiacostiera.gov.it/en/Pages/search-and-rescue.aspx. According to the Italian
Coastguard, the stakeholders involved in search and rescue operations in the Central Mediterranean
area under the coordination of the Italian Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre include the Italian
Coastguard, the Italian Navy, merchant vessels (commercial and NGO vessels), foreign military ships,
EU NAVFOR MED Sophia Operation, and the Italian Guardia di Finanza and Carabinieri.
6 For example, the Italian Code of Conduct for NGOs Undertaking Activities in Migrants’ Rescue
Operations at Sea 1 (2017). Available from
www.avvenire.it/c/attualita/Documents/Codice%20ONG%20migranti%2028%20luglio%202017%20
EN.pdf.
7 Submission of Duke University International Human Rights Clinic, entitled “Search and Rescue
Activities in the Mediterranean and Trafficking in Persons”.
16. During her thematic visits and through the submissions received, the Special
Rapporteur noted a general lack of dedicated procedures to identify and protect trafficking
victims and potential victims at disembarkation points and in hotspots. She was particularly
concerned about the fact that existing procedures were not primarily aimed at detecting
vulnerabilities, including trafficking, but rather at detecting so-called “economic migrants”,
who were by consequence excluded from the international protection framework or any
other protection scheme. The Special Rapporteur also noted a lack of awareness and
understanding of logistical constraints, such as a lack of appropriate venues to carry out
confidential interviews.
17. Furthermore, European efforts to reduce migration movements in the Central
Mediterranean, and in particular the implementation of European Commission action plan
on measures to support Italy, reduce pressure along the Central Mediterranean route and
increase solidarity,8 together with the signature of memorandums of understanding with
countries of origin and transit, have had negative consequences on the protection of the
rights of migrants and victims of trafficking in persons. The above action plan, which is
primarily based on the strengthening of the Libyan coastguard, has proven to be
problematic from a human rights perspective. Recent incidents during search and rescue
operations involving, inter alia, the Libyan coastguard, have included threats to shoot at
NGO vessels if they did not hand over rescued persons, adding to the proof of its inability
to carry out such functions in line with international human rights standards. No migrant
should, after rescue operations, be forcibly returned to Libya, where gross violations of
human rights, including torture, sexual violence, trafficking and slavery, are systematically
perpetrated in detention centres and “connection houses”.9 Finally, the Special Rapporteur
is alarmed at the increasing tendency to place migration within the law enforcement
paradigm, and to present migration-related measures as part of the fight against organized
crime, including human trafficking, with little attention to human rights concerns. This is
clearly reflected in the role played by FRONTEX through its “Operation Themis”, which
has been given an enhanced law enforcement focus and three times the available resources
and personnel, although no new staff and resources are dedicated to the protection of
fundamental rights and the promotion of a victim-centred approach to human trafficking.
2. Identification in hotspot areas
18. A flagship response to identification challenges at disembarkation or first arrival
areas has been the implementation of a hotspot approach, especially in Europe’s southern
countries, such as Greece and Italy. This approach, recommended by the European
Commission and endorsed by the European Council since May 2015,10 provides locations
where undocumented migrants can quickly be identified. However, documented practices
have included forced fingerprinting in de facto detention centres — in violation of
fundamental rights guarantees — and the subsequent separation of migrants for the
purposes of processing asylum applications or to return them to their countries of origin.11
The repressive nature of such identification, coupled with a screening process performed in
8 Available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1882_en.htm. See also the joint communication of the European Commission to the European Parliament, entitled “Migration on the
Central Mediterranean route: Managing flows, saving lives”, available at
http://www.refworld.org/docid/588ef8764.html.
9 United Nations Support Mission in Libya, “Detained and Dehumanised: Report on Human Rights
Abuses against Migrants in Libya” (2016), pp. 14–23, available at
www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/LY/DetainedAndDehumanised_en.pdf.; and C. Healy and R.
Forin, “What are the protection concerns for migrants and refugees in Libya?”, International Centre
for Migration Policy Development policy brief (2017).
10 European Commission, “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions: A
European Agenda on Migration” (2015), p. 6. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/anti-
trafficking/sites/antitrafficking/files/communication_on_the_european_agenda_on_migration_en.pdf.
11 Amnesty International, Hotspot Italy: How EU’s flagship approach leads to violations of refugees
and migrant rights (2016), p. 5.
haste when migrants are still traumatized as a consequence of their perilous journey,12 as
well as severe overcrowding, lack of police protection, unhygienic conditions and abuse
and exploitation, especially against women and children, have been widely reported and
criticized in Greece and in Italy.13
19. It should be reiterated that identification in hotspots is mainly aimed at registering
people in the Eurodac system through fingerprinting, rather than at identifying
vulnerabilities, which are usually detected at a much later stage. In Greece and Italy,
challenges in identifying vulnerabilities at the hotspot stage include: the de-prioritization of
trafficking, in particular during large influx of migrants; the excessive profiling of certain
types of victims, which risks excluding other potentially vulnerable groups from protection;
a weak system of shelter allocation, which causes vulnerable groups to be subjected to a
protracted stay in hotspots; a lack of reliable data in relation to identified victims; limited
awareness among migrant communities about the unacceptability of incidents relating to
gender-based violence and trafficking in human beings; impunity among perpetrators;
infrequent police patrolling in residential areas of the hotspots at night; and a backlog of
people not medically screened upon arrival.
20. A good practice identified in Italy concerns the presence of specialized agencies
such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), IOM
and the NGO Save the Children at disembarkation points and hotspots, working in
cooperation with the police and the Prosecutor’s Office to ensure the identification and
referral of victims or possible victims of trafficking among the incoming migrants.
21. As regards Greek hotspots, a positive development has been the inclusion of
trafficking in the standard operating procedures for the prevention of and response to sexual
and gender-based violence, finalized in June 2017 and jointly agreed upon by the Ministry
of Migration Policy, the Ministry of the Interior, international organizations and civil
society. 14 However, weak sensitization of authorities and limited shelter capacity have
resulted in a reluctance to report incidents of trafficking or gender-based violence to the
appropriate services.15
22. In a context where the identification of trafficked or potentially trafficked persons is
not a priority at disembarkation, the consequence is a very low number of victims and
potential victims identified and protected at that stage, even in situations where anecdotal
evidence and limited but significant research show that a high number of those travelling in
mixed migration movements have been subjected to trafficking and exploitation during
their journey and/or are at a high risk of being trafficked at their final destinations. Lack of
identification of vulnerabilities and consequent referral to non-specialized reception centres
can lead to further re-victimization and exposure to different forms of exploitation, such as
recruitment for forced prostitution/sex work or labour exploitation.16
3. Identification at airports
23. Airports have a role in the identification of victims or potential victims of trafficking
arriving in a country by plane, and especially children. According to FRONTEX and the
European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), airports are
considered to be the likeliest place to find children being trafficked or smuggled into the
12 Ibid. pp. 5–7. See also Oxfam, “Hotspot: Rights Denied”, Briefing Paper (May 2016).
13 While the Special Rapporteur welcomes efforts by FRONTEX to develop individual complaint mechanisms in cases of violations of fundamental rights, this is limited to FRONTEX activities, and doubts have been raised in relation to the effective widespread dissemination among vulnerable
groups and effective understanding of the tool, given also the lack of complaints filed in this regard,
while it has been widely documented that violations have occurred on a regular basis, especially in
hotspot areas. See also www.hrw.org/news/2016/05/19/greece-refugee-hotspots-unsafe-unsanitary. 14 Submission of Fundamental Rights Agency.
15 C. Healy and R. Forin, “Trafficking along migration routes to Europe: Bridging the gap between
migration, asylum and anti-trafficking”, International Centre for Migration Policy Development
policy brief (May 2018).
16 Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), From Reception to Recognition:
Identifying and Protecting Human Trafficking Victims in Mixed Migration Flows (2017), p. 30.
European Union and are used by traffickers and smugglers at peak times when the pressure
at passport control is the highest.17 As such, they have benefited from several initiatives,
training and campaigns aimed at the transport sector.
24. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
and the International Civil Aviation Organization have developed guidelines for airlines to
train cabin crew members to identify and report on trafficked individuals.18 In addition, the
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) initiative #BeAwareOfTheSigns,
implemented in Mexico, has empowered personnel in contact with the airline sector,
including senior management, airline staff, airport managers, baggage handlers, information
employees, flight crew, migration and customs officials, duty-free sales people and
travellers in general, by providing information and indicators to detect possible situations of
human trafficking. 19 Moreover, the UNODC Blue Heart and #AQUIESTOY campaign
promotes the detection and prevention of trafficking in partnership with the leading airline
in Mexico. Another example of training is the VEGA Handbook on children at airports,
developed by FRONTEX. In Nigeria, airport officials in Abuja together with the National
Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons identified 14 potential victims of
trafficking on their way to Saudi Arabia and had their traffickers arrested.20
25. However, concerns remain in relation to the need to strengthen the institutional
framework for identifying victims of trafficking, especially in relation to unaccompanied
and separated children, as noted by UNODC while monitoring immigration points during
visits to border territories with high rates of migration, including in El Dorado international
airport in Bogota. The lack of a clearly articulated response in relation to cases of
unaccompanied minors and victims of trafficking, and the lack of registration of such cases
and of technical expertise, have been identified as the main challenges.21 Another factor
limiting border officials’ capacity to identify potential victims is the pressure to keep
queues at airports and other ports of entry moving. 22 In addition, the increased use of
electronic passport gates at airports means that many passengers do not come into direct
contact with border officials.
4. Identification at land border control
26. Many challenges have been identified at land border control, including: invisible and
porous borders; language and cultural barriers; a lack of education; fear of reporting to
relevant authorities; economic difficulties; lack of adequate settings to conduct interviews;
lack of resources and logistics, for instance transport and child support; the presence of
armed groups and other criminal organizations; and a lack of standardized procedures and
expertise from relevant authorities.
27. For example, the porous nature of the borders between Colombia and Brazil,
Ecuador and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, together with the lack of coordination
among the relevant administrative authorities, hinders the identification and assistance of
unaccompanied and separated children at risk of sexual or labour exploitation, an increasing
concern in the region. Cases of trafficking of children from Colombia to Brazil and Peru for
sexual exploitation have also been reported, and identification concerns have been raised
regarding issues such as the cultural acceptance of child marriage among some
communities and professional prejudices or lack of response from competent authorities in
child protection.23 Along Central American migratory routes and at land borders, similar
concerns have been raised regarding the early detection of such cases owing to the
invisibility of borders, a lack of coordination between different countries’ border control
officials or the high rotation among border control staff, which contribute to the difficulties
17 FRONTEX, VEGA Handbook: Children at Airports, p. 23. Available at
https://euagenda.eu/publications/vega-handbook-children-at-airports.
18 See www.icao.int/safety/airnavigation/OPS/CabinSafety/Documents/Cir.352.alltext.en.pdf
19 Submission of UNODC.
20 See www.today.ng/news/nigeria/79507/human-trafficking-naptip-rescues-14-victims-abuja-airport.
21 Submission of UNODC.
22 Submission of FLEX.
23 Submission of UNODC.
in creating multidisciplinary and transnational teams despite implemented efforts on
training and capacity-building at the regional, bilateral or national levels.24
28. Similarly, serious concerns have arisen in relation to the increasing number of
trafficking cases of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh and neighbouring countries.25 For
such refugees, the clandestine nature of their journey, the often unscrupulous and corrupt
conduct of their facilitators and collaborators and the extent to which some States will go to
prevent their departure, transit or arrival, all operate to create or exacerbate opportunities
for traffickers, who prey on their precarious situation. For instance, Rohingya from
Myanmar typically embark on maritime and overland journeys, often via Thailand, to reach
Malaysia irregularly. Initially smuggled across borders, some are subsequently trafficked to
work on fishing boats or palm oil plantations for labour exploitation.26
29. The Special Rapporteur also received allegations in relation to a pattern of arrests
and detentions of Bangladeshi and Rohingya women and girls for the sole purpose of them
being undocumented in the area of West Bengal in India, at the border with Bangladesh. In
that regard, appropriate investigations and early identification had to be undertaken to
determine whether they had entered the territory of India by means of coercion, abduction,
fraud, deception, abuse of power or a position of vulnerability, for the purpose of
exploitation.
B. Identification in transit countries
30. The recent migration situation into Europe has primarily involved an influx of
Syrians, Iraqis and Afghans, many of whom moved through the Balkans (often referred to
as “the Balkan route”) in their attempt to reach Europe. Along the way, and at various
stages of their journeys and flights, many of those migrants and refugees are exposed to
different risks, vulnerabilities and exploitation, including, in some cases, human
trafficking.27
31. In Central America, migrants attempting to reach the United States of America, have
been forced to rely upon increasingly dangerous routes, often ending up in the hands of
smugglers and traffickers. Smuggled migrants are vulnerable to trafficking, including
mistreatment, sexual exploitation, threats, intimidations and restriction of their freedom of
movement. Most overland migration involves migrants from El Salvador, Guatemala and
Honduras transiting through Mexico to the United States. 28 IOM Mexico noted that
trafficking victims are often identified at the moment they are freed from exploitation,
either through the payment of ransom sums, when they manage to escape by their own
means or, in exceptional circumstances, when traffickers free or abandon them.
32. Similarly, the journey of sub-Saharan African women and unaccompanied children
is particularly hazardous. Thousands of such women and children have disappeared,
presumably abducted for purposes of trafficking-related exploitation. Somali and Sudanese
refugees and asylum seekers fleeing conflict, including numerous unaccompanied children,
have been kidnapped or lured from refugee camps or while travelling, sold and
subsequently held captive in Libya or in the Sinai desert for the purpose of exploitation
through extortion.29
33. The main challenges common to all transit countries relate to a recurrent confusion
between trafficking and smuggling, and an inadequate legal framework and standard
24 Ibid.
25 See A/HRC/32/18, para. 11.
26 See A/HRC/29/38/Add.1, para. 19; and A/HRC/32/41, para. 24. 27 FAFO, Vulnerability and exploitation along the Balkan route: Identifying victims of human
trafficking in Serbia (Oslo, 2017), available at www.fafo.no/images/pub/2017/20620.pdf. Also Healy
and Forin, “Trafficking along migration routes”.
28 See UNODC, “Smuggling of Migrants from the Northern Triangle to the United States”, available at
www.unodc.org/documents/toc/Reports/TOCTASouthAmerica/English/
TOCTA_CACaribb_migrantsmuggling_to_US.pdf.
29 See A/HRC/32/41 para. 21.
operating procedures or their correct implementation, which contribute to the non-
identification and misidentification of victims and possible victims of trafficking in transit
to their destination. 30 The varying knowledge concerning counter-trafficking among
immigration case officers and other authorities, health-care providers and NGOs, and the
lack of communication between stakeholders, further impact the practical implementation
of the activities envisaged in the standard operating procedures.
34. Moreover, refugees and migrants in transit countries are often not willing to report
their exploitation, as their priority is to continue their journey to their intended country of
destination. Those in irregular migration situations have limited avenues to seek redress in
the event that exploitation occurs, because of threats to them or their family members from
traffickers. The risk of becoming stranded, arrested, detained or deported also makes them
reluctant to complain or seek the support of the relevant authorities or other stakeholders.31
35. These challenges are further exacerbated by the hostile political climate towards
migrants, including asylum seekers and refugees, and by the fact that the identification of
trafficked persons is not perceived as a protection priority in the context of mixed
migration.32 As migrants find themselves stranded in transit countries owing to a lack of
financial means and a lack of safe and legal ways to continue the journey to their intended
country of destination, or in destination countries with no access to the regular labour
market, often the only option available to them is to resort to traffickers or dubious
intermediaries, who offer exploitative working conditions.
36. Specific challenges have been reported in relation to individual regions. In many
European countries, screening and identification procedures/activities remain insufficient
and incomprehensive. Moreover, few countries seem to have specific indicators on
vulnerability for the target group in place. Early identification among migrants and refugees
is also not mandatory or not part of formal procedures.33 Other challenges include a lack of
facilities, the fact that temporary residence permits for trafficked persons — and
consequently protection and assistance measures — are linked to police investigation and
the legal qualification of the crime. Other factors contributing to misidentification include
the disconnect between asylum and migration actors and procedures, on the one hand, and
anti-trafficking actors and procedures, on the other; receiving a negative decision in the
asylum or family reunification procedure; long waiting periods within the asylum
procedure; having an undocumented immigration status; uncertain legal status during the
journey; and delays in the appointment of a guardian, and/or guardians’ insufficient
capacity to appropriately care specifically for unaccompanied and separated children.34
37. In El Salvador, some of the challenges related to lack of identification, especially in
relation to cases of forced labour and labour exploitation, stem from a sort of
“normalization” of conditions of exploitation of the working class, especially the most
vulnerable ones, such as indigenous groups, women, children and migrants, who are less
keen to report cases of exploitation for fear of reprisals.35
38. Lack of identification of victims or potential victims of trafficking is also linked to
the use of profiling, which tends to categorize women and children as victims, excluding
men from protection measures. For example, in Lebanon, Syrian single male refugees are
disproportionately targeted by both governmental authorities and host communities because
they are perceived as a security threat. They therefore rely upon negative coping strategies
to maintain their immediate safety, which exposes them to exploitation and abuse,
especially in the labour market. Both in cases of threats to personal safety and exploitation
30 Healy and Forin, “Trafficking along migration routes”.
31 Ibid., and submission of La Strada International.
32 Healy and Forin, “Trafficking along migration routes”.
33 Submission of La Strada International.
34 Healy and Forin, “Trafficking along migration routes”.
35 IOM, “Trata de Personas con fines de explotacion laboral en Centro America: El Salvador” (2011),
p. 29. Available at
http://plataformadeaprendizaje.iom.int/pluginfile.php/12468/mod_resource/content/11/Trata_de_pers
onas_el_salvador.pdf.
incidents, male refugees reported not seeking help from authorities owing to lack of
confidence that justice would be afforded to them.36
39. Generally, the link between migrants’ vulnerabilities to labour exploitation and
trafficking has not been acknowledged. On the contrary, it is ignored or culturally accepted,
such as the reported cases of exploitation of migrant workers in the agricultural sector in
Southern Europe, and in other informal sectors where migrants, and especially irregular
migrants, are more exposed to exploitative conditions, including the agriculture,
construction and textile industries. In those sectors, women are also targets for labour
exploitation. Indeed, situations have also been reported in which women are exploited from
a labour perspective in fields during the day, then exploited sexually during the night.37 In
addition, the business practices of recruitment intermediaries, who are largely unregulated
or informal, such as the charging of fees to migrant workers or the arrangement of unclear
and informal working arrangements, are still largely viewed as common rather than abusive
conditions of work.
C. Identification in countries of destination
40. Migrants in vulnerable situations in countries of destination remain of concern to
assistance providers. Lack of protection, inadequate housing solutions and limited or lack
of legal residence or employment are some of the issues raised and which impact on the
identification of victims and potential victims of trafficking from among migrants. This
lack of protection or assistance resources continues to increase the risk of migrants to
exploitation, amounting in some cases to trafficking in persons.38
41. Concerning the identification of children, child protection services are often not
trained to identify and establish a specific protection programme for child victims of
trafficking. As a consequence, adults accompanying children are identified as family
members or guardians, while in reality may be linked to the traffickers, or children may be
placed in centres with little protection, to be picked up by a trafficker at a later stage.39
42. In addition, a lack of adequate response in the country of destination increases the
risk that refugees and migrants will be returned to the first country of arrival or their
country of origin. As a consequence, people on the move often prefer to remain in an
irregular situation rather than being identified and therefore registered through a formal
procedure.40 Meanwhile, asylum procedures offer an opportunity to detect indications of
trafficking, in addition to or as an alternative to grounds for international protection,
eventually leading to a referral to services on the grounds of trafficking or risk of
trafficking. Therefore, following existing good practices, it is absolutely necessary to train
asylum staff to detect trafficking indications and cooperate with NGO service providers.41
43. As noted above, refugees and migrants are not likely to discuss their situation during
first arrival interviews or in their encounters with different services along their journey
through transit countries. In many cases, experiences of exploitation and trafficking in
persons will only be shared at a later stage of the journey and not necessarily on arrival at
the destination country. Such information is more likely to be shared in the context of a
long-established relationship with a service provider that might not be originally mandated
to perform identification, for example, health providers or protection actors. An exclusive
focus on identification by border or other front-line officials might not provide the desired
results. On the contrary, it would be more beneficial to train and raise awareness among a
36 International Rescue Committee, “Vulnerability assessment of Syrian Refugee Men in Lebanon”
(2016). Available at
www.rescue.org/sites/default/files/document/464/irclebanonrefugeemensvulnerabilityassessment.pdf.
37 Submission of Proxima NGO.
38 Submission of La Strada International.
39 Submission of Swedish Platform Civil Society against Human Trafficking.
40 Ibid.
41 See for example, www.unhcr.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Linee-Guida-identificazione-vittime-di-
tratta.pdf.
larger group of social services professionals, including medical staff, social workers, or
other civil society actors, as well as local communities, who enter into contact with
migrants in different contexts and are in a position to establish a safe space and relationship
of trust over time with potential victims of trafficking.42
44. Generally, the need for training is a major concern in the identification of victims of
trafficking in countries of destination, even when there are mechanisms or procedures that
include all relevant stakeholders. A lack of appropriate training is also a consequence of
insufficient resources allocated to such services, which is in turn a consequence of political
will, which is focused instead on countering migration.43 Other groups identified in need of
training include law enforcement, border police, asylum caseworkers, immigration services,
refugee counselling centres, specialized migration centres, youth welfare offices, labour
inspectors, immigration services, health support organizations, reception centres, migrant
detention centres, legal services, municipal officers, labour authorities, migrant
organizations, airport personnel, other transport providers and traditional, religious and
community leaders in countries of origin.44
45. As regards the judiciary, organizations that provide assistance have also raised
concerns about the subtle categorization of certain indicators in labour abuse or exploitative
conditions of work as cases of trafficking in persons for labour exploitation. A good
practice involves the collaboration between assistance organizations and prosecution
offices, through exchanges including public hearings, which can raise the level of
awareness of the judiciary. As a result, prosecutorial and judicial authorities are more
attentive to relevant indicators in the subsequent cases, which can increase the number of
cases reviewed with successful outcomes for victims.45
46. Feedback from destination regions shows a need to strengthen the ability of
multidisciplinary teams to identify vulnerabilities and assistance needs. For example, in the
identification of cases of labour exploitation, this approach implies the reinforcement of
labour inspectorates and the inclusion of a trafficking dimension within service providers
working on migrant worker protection.
47. To increase the identification of trafficking for labour exploitation, the enforcement
of labour standards should be a key element in anti-trafficking policy, in addition to the
evaluation of the indicators used to identify practices such as charging recruitment fees to
migrant workers, the absence of contracts or the retention of passports and other personal
documents, and ensure such practices are included as indicators in identification
procedures. Often, trafficking for labour exploitation is linked to small labour abuses, and
labour inspectors are better placed to provide early warnings on labour abuses that can
mask grave violations, such as forced labour or trafficking in persons. Inspections should be
strengthened and proactive, as the hidden nature of labour exploitation often goes
underreported owing to a number of barriers faced by migrant workers, including fear of
retaliation, linguistic barriers, lack of information about their rights, insecure status, etc.46
Proactive labour inspection must not be limited to working sites but also include
recruitment agents. A good example is the licensing scheme operated in the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse
Authority, which regulates labour providers in the agriculture, horticulture and shellfish
gathering sectors. That organization’s licensing standards reflect key forced labour
indicators and are monitored and enforced through proactive inspections. Its mandate has
been expanded by the Immigration Act 2016 to cover the investigation of labour
exploitation offences.47
42 Submissions of La Strada International and FLEX.
43 Submission of La Strada International.
44 Ibid. See also ECOWAS Commission, “Annual Synthesis Report on Trafficking in Persons in West
Africa 2016” (2017).
45 Submission of Ruelle.
46 Submission of FLEX. See also
www.icmpd.org/fileadmin/user_upload/WP11_PolicyBrief_LabourInspection_FINAL.pdf.
47 Submission of FLEX.
48. The need to separate labour inspection from immigration control is also paramount
in order to create a trustworthy space for migrant workers. Such a firewall has been
advocated since 2014 by the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants because
migrant workers in an irregular status or precarious legal status are reluctant to report
unless there is a firewall preventing labour inspectors from communicating information on
potential irregularities in immigration status to immigration enforcement.
49. A good practice was examined while visiting Portugal in preparation of the present
report. The Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons found to be exemplary the
country’s practice of adapting the cooperation mechanism procedures to the legislative and
institutional changes that had occurred since 2008. The National Referral Mechanism,
revised in 2014 by the Portuguese working group that coordinated the activities of the
national action plan, ensured that newly emerging forms of trafficking for the purpose of
labour exploitation, forced begging and criminal activities were included with a view to
also addressing the increased migrant-related trafficking in the country, which is a transit
and destination for trafficking.
50. The origin of the Portuguese success is twofold. On the one hand, identification and
referral is based on the work of regional multidisciplinary teams whose composition can be
adapted to the circumstances of the case and type of exploitation, and which includes a
wide range of actors, such as social workers and psychologists. In addition, those teams
have also developed regional networks to help victims, including relevant public bodies and
civil society actors. On the other hand, these efforts have been strengthened by a
programme for the integration of identified victims, including access to the labour market.
However, this approach has been used in a context of limited movement of people, as
compared with other regions or countries, and its scalability and adaptability to deal with
mixed migration movements and higher numbers of arrivals should be tested.
D. Impact of return procedures in identification of victims and potential
victims of trafficking in persons
51. Within the current international protection system, those persons whose applications
for international protection have been refused are subject to return to their country of origin.
At the European Union level, transfer to the first European Union country of arrival can
also happen even before a determination of their cases have been made, based on the
Dublin III Regulation.48 In that case, the risks of non-detection of victims and potential
victims of trafficking increase as many countries do not have in place procedures for their
proactive detection, especially when the application of Dublin criteria is assessed before a
first interview takes place with the applicant for international protection.
52. According to feedback received, the risk for victims of trafficking of exposure to
reprisals and re-victimization increases as they are likely to be contacted again by the
trafficking network when returned to the first European Union country of arrival. Those
risks are in principle not taken into consideration when determining which European Union
member State is responsible for examining the application for international protection.49
Submitted information also raises general concerns on the lack of training of officials to
appreciate these dangers and safety concerns. Active screening for indicators of trafficking
is on many occasions not performed under the assumption that the appropriate screening
has already taken place at an earlier stage of the process, before the Dublin procedure is
applied.50 Even if cases of trafficking are identified, there is a lack of clear guidance within
the social assistance system when a Dublin transfer has nevertheless been processed.51
48 Available from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32013R0604. See also: www.icmpd.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Policy_Brief_Relocation-20062017_FINAL.pdf.
49 Submission of Swedish Platform Civil Society against Human Trafficking.
50 European Migration network, “Synthesis report: Identification of victims of trafficking in human
beings in international protection and forced return procedures” (March 2014), p. 7. Available at
www.refworld.org/docid/5326b50a4.html. See also Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in
Human Beings, “Fifth General Report on GRETA’s activities” (2015), p. 34. Available at
53. Generally, the treatment of victims of trafficking deported to their countries of origin
is of concern. Victims are stigmatized, discriminated against, and some suffer from mental
health issues, which hinder them from communicating and trusting other people. 52 The
human rights impact of returns, especially mass returns, cannot be underestimated. For
instance, the deportation from Libya of 3,480 young Nigerians, mostly girls and women,
following the shocking video on slavery-trade markets, reveals that some victims of human
trafficking encounter considerable obstacles when they return home — on their arrival at
the airport, they are seen as undignified persons and isolated from the community due to the
fact that they were involved in prostitution/sex work.53
54. European States are de facto delegating returns of migrants to FRONTEX, whose
budget has recently almost more than doubled specifically with regards to the
implementation of return procedures. FRONTEX implements this task, inter alia, by taking
into consideration the principle of non-refoulement throughout its activities, not allowing
returns of unaccompanied minors and providing training on fundamental rights to the teams
in charge of monitoring forced returns. However, it is alarming that States or regional
institutions lack clear guidelines in relation to the forced returns of potential victims of
trafficking that they might have failed to identify, considering also the rapidity and
inadequacy of identification during large mixed migration movements. It is even more
alarming that States are delegating the implementation of such procedures to a regional
institution such as FRONTEX, which cannot interfere in the decision-making over
individual cases. As a consequence, the final decision stays with national authorities, which
risks nullifying the efforts made by FRONTEX specialized teams to integrate a human
rights component.
55. In other regions of the world, for example in South-East Asia, forced returns of
irregular migrants to countries of origin show similar challenges. High numbers of
suspected victims of trafficking are potentially present within forced return programmes,
but are not identified owing to a lack of appropriate mechanisms for screening indicators of
trafficking.54
E. Role of referral mechanisms in early identification and assistance to
victims of trafficking
Cooperation mechanisms for referral of victims of trafficking in persons
56. States use various means to fulfil their obligations to protect and promote the human
rights of trafficked persons, including promulgating anti-trafficking legislations and
policies such as national action plans, and establishing multidisciplinary coordinating
institutions and frameworks such as national referral mechanisms and standard operating
procedures to implement the Palermo Protocol and other anti-trafficking regional
instruments. While these cooperation mechanisms are designed to provide an effective way
to refer trafficked persons to comprehensive services in coordinated efforts between State
institutions and civil society organizations, they are not exempt of shortcomings in their
practical application. In the specific context of mixed migration movements, despite the
prominent role played by international organizations in identification, a lack of specific
international cooperation mechanisms hinders the referral of victims to local assistance
https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000
0168063093c.
51 Submissions of Swedish Platform Civil Society against Human Trafficking and La Strada
International.
52 Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation, Nigeria: COI
Compilation on Human Trafficking (December 2017), p. 36. Available at
www.refworld.org/pdfid/5a79c7114.pdf.
53 Ibid. p. 32.
54 ASEAN, Regional review on Laws, Policies and Practices within ASEAN relating to the
Identification, Management and Treatment of Victims of Trafficking, especially Women and Children
(2016), p. 134. Available at http://asean.org/storage/2016/09/ACWC-Regional-Review.pdf.
providers.55 Moreover, cooperation mechanisms are often based on police operations and
assistance is only triggered by the official identification by law enforcement officials of a
victim of trafficking in persons, thus creating a system shaped around a criminal
investigation instead of the rights and needs of victims of trafficking.
57. The question then is what specific roles do cooperation mechanisms have in the
context of early identification and assistance of victims of trafficking from among the large
groups involved in the mixed migration context. In that regard, the Special Rapporteur
noted with appreciation during her visit to Italy the combined use of the national anti-
trafficking framework and the refugee protection system to complement each other and
increase the protection of rights in cases of large mixed migration movements.56 However,
referral from asylum territorial commissions and from IOM at disembarkation points and
hotspots to the anti-trafficking national network, and the subsequent placement of victims
in specialized shelters, depends on the limited places for vulnerable groups, such as victims
of trafficking and unaccompanied and separated children. As a result, those vulnerable
groups end up staying for prolonged periods of time in the hotspots, as specialized shelter
capacity remains limited.57
58. Moreover, when there is a large-scale arrival of people, it has been noted that
cooperation mechanisms are often not involved at an early stage to identify victims of
trafficking for a variety of reasons.58 In European Union hotspots, migrant reception centres
and other structures, a lack of understanding that trafficking can and often does happen in
the context of mixed migration movements leads to the de-prioritization of trafficking
issues. As a consequence, victims and potential victims of trafficking are not identified or
misidentified and are not provided with effective protection and remedies.
59. Early assistance to identified victims of trafficking is even more difficult in States
that did not have mechanisms or guidelines for their referral prior to large-scale arrivals. In
such cases, for migrants who are not in camps or migration facilities, the chances of
identification and assistance are even slimmer. For instance, in Jordan, the detection of
trafficked persons from among the Syrian refugees outside camps is negligible.59
60. In order to address this problem, the Special Rapporteur echoes the views of
practitioners and civil society organizations, namely, that early identification should not
only focus on entry points to the country, like border points or transit centres, but also at
locations where migrants and refugees might live or gather and can be reached.
Identification is not necessarily a one-step process, but might take a longer time.60
Cooperation in cross-border trafficking cases
61. Cooperation in cross-border trafficking cases involve the protection of victims or
possible victims of trafficking in more than two countries.
62. In many European countries, this also means exchanging practices and learning how
to legally challenge the transfer of victims of trafficking under Dublin procedures when this
is done without consideration for the risks of re-trafficking and without the necessary and
required safeguards.61
63. Within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region,62 the high
levels of cross-border trafficking raise practical questions about recognition by one State of
55 IOM, “National Referral Mechanisms for Victims of Human Trafficking: Deficiencies and Future
Development” (2017), p. 4. Available at
https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/national_referral_mechanisms.pdf.
56 See www.unhcr.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Linee-Guida-identificazione-vittime-di-tratta.pdf.
57 Dutch Council for Refugees, “The implementation of hotspot in Italy and Greece: A study”, p. 16.
Available at www.ecre.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/HOTSPOTS-Report-5.12.2016.pdf.
58 Healy and Forin, “Trafficking along migration routes”; and ASEAN, Regional review, pp. 44 and 63.
59 See A/HRC/32/41/Add.1.
60 Submission of La Strada International.
61 Ibid.
62 ASEAN, Regional review on Laws, p. 62.
victim status granted by another State. 63 Other referral and cooperation issues in
transnational referrals 64 include: unassisted return, which can be stressful for trafficked
persons, particularly if they fear retribution by their exploiter(s); inadequate referral of
cases, which can result in people who are identified as trafficking victims in the destination
country remaining unidentified for assistance upon their return home; broken links with
established assistance services if authorities from one country return victims to their
countries of origin; and a lack of cooperative case planning and management while victims
of trafficking are abroad, meaning that they do not always receive a continuity of care upon
their return home.
64. In Central America, regional coordination mechanisms — through the regional
mechanism against trafficking and smuggling, the Regional Conference on Migration, the
Caribbean Council and the Central American Council of Public Ministries — have
developed regional and national protocols on this issue to follow up on human trafficking
and migration issues in the region. The UNODC Regional Office for Central America and
the Caribbean in Panama cooperates with these mechanisms through the preparation of
guidelines on information-sharing on trafficking in border areas, addressed to Costa Rica,
Guatemala, Honduras and Panama. It also performs bilateral and regional capacity-building
activities and information exchanges on migratory movements among those countries, on
regular and irregular migratory paths, with the objective of better identifying vulnerabilities
and planning a coordinated response.
VI. Conclusions and recommendations
A. Conclusions
65. Current approaches to migration and the identification of victims and potential
victims of trafficking are taking place in a context in which poisonous political
discourse is leading many countries to adopt anti-migration and even racist positions.
In these situations, the main concern of many Governments, including many
European Governments, is to drastically limit or even block migration movements,
with little attention paid to the human rights implications of such policies, and
offering no significant solutions, so far, in terms of shared responsibility with
countries of first arrival.
66. Today, some protection channels are partially in place, namely, for asylum and
international protection, child protection, assistance measures for trafficked persons,
and in very limited terms for smuggled persons. Yet, current international protection
systems, screening procedures and national cooperation mechanisms have difficulties
in adapting to the complex realities of today’s large mixed movements of people
arriving through a single entry point at the same time.
67. More specifically, procedures of accurate and early screening based on
individual interviews and assessment carried out in a friendly setting, preferably by
trained social workers, as well as mechanisms for referral to appropriate institutions,
are not systematically established in the places of first arrival of the large influx of
refugees and migrants. While there has been promising work in refining indicators of
vulnerabilities to trafficking to facilitate detection and referral at an early stage upon
arrival, such as the surveys developed by IOM in the Central and Eastern
Mediterranean route, 65 there are also concerns over the use of specific profiling
techniques in assistance and protection mechanisms and standardized sets of
indicators, which might not be comprehensive and might lose sight of other types of
vulnerabilities not specifically listed. Excessive profiling can further stigmatize target
63 Ibid., p. 44.
64 Ibid., p. 63.
65 IOM, “Flow monitoring surveys: The human trafficking and other exploitative practices indication
survey” (2017), available at http://migration.iom.int/docs/Analysis_Flow_Monitoring_and_Human_
Trafficking_Surveys_in_the_Mediterranean_and_Beyond_26_April_2017.pdf.
groups and has not proven effective, as a very modest number of victims have been
identified and protected in countries of first arrival.
68. In addition, officials in the places of first arrival often lack the capacity to
identify quickly and at an early stage factual indicators of vulnerabilities, including to
trafficking, and assess the credibility of the narrative of the person. Such officials
should be trained to interview individuals using an appropriate and human-rights
based methodology, check the credibility of their narrative and identify the most
appropriate protection channel without infringing the right to apply for asylum or
other forms of international protection. On the other hand, identification of trafficked
persons and persons at risk from among asylum seekers should be integrated into
asylum procedures.
69. Finally, the Special Rapporteur wishes to raise an alarm about the fact that
results have been very modest regarding identification and assistance of trafficking
victims and potential victims in the context of mixed migration movements. Therefore,
an innovative model is needed, not primarily based on police operations or the
decision-making of immigration authorities, but rather based on the assessment of
every individual’s background and personal conditions, in cooperation with civil
society organizations. This entails the consideration of new protection schemes that
should be focused not only on early identification of trafficking victims but also on a
mechanism for the early referral and protection of persons in vulnerable situations.
Refugees, asylum seekers and migrants in vulnerable situations are always at a high
risk of falling prey to traffickers.
B. Recommendations
70. In view of States’ legal responsibility to identify, protect and assist victims and
possible victims of trafficking in persons, especially women and children, in all
circumstances, including in the context of mixed migration flows, the Special
Rapporteur offers the recommendations below.
71. In relation to the protection of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants in
vulnerable situations, including victims and potential victims of trafficking in persons,
States should:
(a) Ensure that human rights are at the centre of efforts to address
migration in all its phases, including responses to large and mixed movements,
through the ratification and implementation of international and regional human
rights instruments;
(b) Establish safe and legal migration channels, respecting the principle of
non-refoulement and ensuring that migrants have access to the regular labour market
in the host country, in cooperation with United Nations agencies and programmes and
international organizations;
(c) Ensure that appropriate laws and procedures are in place to enable
actors to protect and assist refugees and migrants, and review and suspend, amend or
repeal any laws or other measures that have a negative or disproportionate impact on
the human rights of refugees and migrants;
(d) Ensure that national legal frameworks and policies as well as
bilateral/multilateral cooperation uphold and strengthen the effectiveness of the
search and rescue regime, in accordance with international law and standards. Ensure
that organizations and individuals who rescue or assist people on the move are not
criminalized or otherwise punished for doing so. Ensure that people who are rescued
at sea or land are not returned to a country where they may be at risk of trafficking or
other human rights violations.
72. The Special Rapporteur also offers the recommendations below to improve
identification of victims and potential victims of trafficking on arrival, transit or
destination.
73. With regard to identification or screening tools, procedures and facilities,
States, international organizations and civil society should:
(a) Prioritize and establish dedicated and standardized procedures for the
identification of indicators of vulnerability and assistance of victims and potential
victims of trafficking through referral to protection services in areas of arrival of
large influxes of people, in addition to international protection and child protection
schemes. Implement individual screening and assessment procedures as soon as
possible after migrants arrive. Ensure that experts in identification are present at
borders to complete human rights-based screenings and referrals. Provide training to
relevant border, migration and asylum authorities on the use of these indicators and
referral measures;
(b) Develop standard screening forms that are sufficiently detailed to allow
first responders to identify migrants in vulnerable situations early on and refer them
to appropriate channels. Map all stakeholders likely to come into contact with the
migrant population, especially health providers, migrant community leaders, social
workers, labour inspectors and asylum caseworkers and ensure they are trained in
identification and screening tools and coordination mechanisms in place for
identification and referral;
(c) Expand current indicators used in the identification procedures of
trafficking in persons to address profiling and systematically include indicators of
migrants’ situations of vulnerabilities that can lead to a risk of trafficking, based on
the experience acquired by national agencies, international organizations and civil
society. Such indicators should take into account risks occurring during or as a result
of the migratory journey and/or at destination, such as those stemming from lack of
financial resources, irregular status, use of migrant smuggling services, torture and
extortion, sexual violence and sexual and labour exploitation;
(d) Facilitate victims’ identification during search and rescue operations and
at disembarkation points, by creating safe and confidential spaces to carry out
individual interviews. Such interviews should be performed by trained staff and
interpreters who can promptly assess indicators of vulnerability and provide adequate
support, also in order to separate potential victims from traffickers;
(e) Allocate sufficient resources to ensure that places for arrival,
disembarkation, reception centres and settings meet human rights standards for
reception and assistance in accordance with the OHCHR and Global Migration
Group Principles and Guidelines on the human rights protection of migrants in
vulnerable situations;66
(f) Ensure that women, girls, men and boys vulnerable to sexual and/or
labour exploitation are promptly identified and referred to gender-sensitive services
on arrival, and in transit and destination countries;
(g) In transit and destination countries, establish a clear firewall between
labour inspection, immigration control and law enforcement. Ensure labour
inspection is proactive and adequately resourced;
(h) Develop adequate, human rights-based and gender-sensitive information
material available in a language migrants understand, to ensure access to specialized
services.
74. With regard to children, States, international organizations and civil society
should:
(a) Ensure that children, especially unaccompanied and separated children,
are promptly identified, registered and referred to the child protection system; and
ensure that such identification procedures take into account the age, gender and
maturity of the child, as well as the circumstances of his or her journey;
66 Available at www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Migration/PrinciplesAndGuidelines.pdf.
(b) Adopt proactive protection measures based on the best interest of the
child in line with international law, as well as Committee on the Rights of the Child
general comment No. 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best
interests taken as a primary consideration, including by appointing properly trained
and resourced guardians and establishing measures for protection and transition to
adulthood;
(c) Ensure that a child-sensitive age assessment is performed only in cases of
doubt regarding the child’s age. In case of uncertainty, the person should be
considered a child.
75. In order to improve the identification of trafficked children or those at risk at
airports and sea and land border crossings, States should enhance coordination
among law enforcement officials and entities such as airline staff, other transport
providers, child protection services and those who work with other vulnerable groups.
76. With regard to the identification of victims and potential victims from among
the asylum-seeking population States should:
(a) Integrate identification of trafficking victims and potential victims into
asylum procedures, including in the context of accelerated procedures;
(b) In accordance with the UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection
No. 7, consider trafficking in the country of origin, destination or transit, and the risk
of trafficking, re-trafficking or reprisals from traffickers, as grounds to be granted
international protection;
(c) Develop regular coordination between the asylum procedures and the
trafficking protection systems in order to ensure that people identified as at risk of
trafficking during asylum procedures are referred to the trafficking protection system
and — when both grounds are recognized — have access to both refugee status and
protection as victims or potential victims of trafficking.
77. With regard to the identification of victims and potential victims in return
procedures, States should ensure that risks of trafficking and re-trafficking are
adequately evaluated when a decision is made on return, including if the person is
returned to the first country of arrival or a third country, and ensure that no person,
regardless of their status, is returned to a place where there are substantial grounds to
believe that they would be at risk of being subject to torture or other cruel, inhuman,
or degrading treatment or punishment, or other serious human rights violations,
including a risk of being trafficked or subject to reprisals from the traffickers and
their networks.
78. With regard to cooperation and referral mechanisms, States should:
(a) Establish cooperation mechanisms for referral of victims of trafficking
in persons and clearly determine the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders
within the mechanism, including coordination between international organizations
and national and local protection services. Ensure assistance is provided
unconditionally, and is non-discriminatory, culturally appropriate, gender-responsive
and sensitive to disability and age;
(b) Reinforce or create mobile multidisciplinary teams for identification and
referral of trafficking victims or potential victims, the composition of which can be
adapted to the circumstances of the case;
(c) Develop or strengthen measures to ensure coordination and referral
between different protection systems, including protection against trafficking, child
protection and international protection. Ensure that such measures are promptly
implemented upon disembarkation and during the registration and reception
procedures.
79. National and local social authorities and civil society organizations should be
involved in procedures to detect trafficking cases and indications of the risk of
trafficking, as well as in the organization of assistance, protection and support for
victims or potential victims in cases where a high number of people are identified.
Such measures must not be made conditional on the initiation of criminal proceedings,
the legal qualification of the crime or the cooperation of victims with law enforcement
authorities.