Human Rights and Wrongs

Is the return of trafficked victims always safe?

Today’s side event was on the return of trafficked victims. I was keen to attend as the International Federation of Terre des Hommes is very actively campaigning against child trafficking and I got to attend a lot of related discussions during my IFTDH internship in Brussels. I’m not going to give a detailed description of the discussion because I think it would be a lot more interesting, and hopefully thought provoking, if I just outline the main points that struck me.

There was a great panel of speakers: An NGO representative from Moldova, a lawyer from Switzerland, a representative of the Poppy Project in the UK and a representative from La Strada Poland.

The discussion was led by members of the OSCE’s ODIHR’s Human Rights department and was based on the worrying fact that indicators show not only that returns of trafficked victims are increasing, but that these returns are not usually accompanied by a proper risk assessment of the situation when they arrive at their country of origin. Coupled with the EU’s proposals for harmonising the return of ‘illegal migrants’, a term which if broadly used includes those who have been trafficked, there are serious questions about what is happening to many trafficked victims.

A few points that struck me:

• 650,000 ‘illegal migrants’ were returned to their countries of origin last year from the European Union. How many were victims of trafficking and how many of those victims were subject to forced returns, back to the conditions from which they were trafficked in the first place is unknown.
• A risk assessment is vital to determine whether a victim may be returned to her country of origin (the discussion focused on women who are trafficked). Serious questions remain about who should carry out the risk assessment but it is generally thought a collaborative effort between law enforcement authorities and NGOs result in the most realistic picture. Where the information should come from is another vital consideration. Authorities, and even NGOs are often keen to stress the services that are available to trafficked victims and underplay the risks they may encounter. Once again collaboration is the keyword, enabling a realistic picture of the situation to emerge.
• A central problem in the case of Poland, but also in other countries, is the lack of identification of trafficked people. It was argued that this is not due to the lack of knowledge of trafficking or measures with which it can be identified, but instead due to the lack of political will and the generally negative perception of migrants.
• This leads on to the fact that even in countries where good laws exist relating to the fight against trafficking, if there is no general awareness about the issue, or law enforcement officials are not trained to identify victims of trafficking the laws are not enforced and have no impact on the problem.
• Trafficking cases are often treated in a similar way to asylum claims. The country of origin is looked at in general terms and not with particular reference to the case, which misses the point. A woman from a ‘safe’ country may not be safe if returned there, to the criminal gangs who trafficked her in the first place, to the same situation which may have led her to desperate measures to make money, and this time with the added trauma of what she experienced when she was trafficked.
• A related point is that the burden of proof lies very heavily with the victim of trafficking. She must prove she is at risk in her country of origin. But how should she, or her lawyers, find this proof without putting themselves in danger? And what if she has no access to a lawyer?
• There is a serious gap in the campaign to stop trafficking. There are wide international programmes, and there are small NGOs taking up individual cases, but the cooperation and coordination needed for longer-term solutions to the problem are often simply not there. Added to this is the fact that trafficking networks are enormous and complex.
• States in general are obsessed with the worry that if provisions are made for such victims, they are open to abuse of the system and will be taken advantage of. In actual fact, such worries tend to be proved ill founded.

One example from Switzerland really illustrated the appalling experiences trafficked victims often suffer and the lack of understanding countries of destination can show when regarding their cases:

• A 16 year-old Brazilian girl was trafficked to Switzerland and made to work in a brothel. After two years she escaped and with the help of an NGO was able to compile a criminal case against her traffickers. The girl’s mother came from Brazil and gave evidence in court, saying there were other minors who were used in the brothel. The court, once the case was closed, said that the girl was now free to return to Brazil. Her lawyers protested that her return would not be safe as a result of the trial, that she was at risk of being murdered and appealed the decision. The mother, who had testified, returned to Brazil and was herself killed by the brother of the accused man. The appeals continued until they reached the highest court in Switzerland. Only then, when the highest court referred back to the court of first instance was a permit granted for the girl to stay.

If you, as someone who has been forced into the sex trade and been subjected to all sorts of violence and inhumane treatment cannot be granted the right to stay in a safe country until a member of your family is killed, well, what is there left to say?

posted by Becca @ 4:30 pm