Johanna Westeson - The ICHRP

The Court found that Cyprus had violated Article 2 in its procedural aspect, when failing to
effectively investigate Ms Rantseva’s death. The different allegations related to trafficking
were examined under Article 4, prohibition of slavery and forced labor. The Court
concluded that trafficking in human beings, by its very nature and aim of exploitation, is
prohibited under Article 4 of the Convention. It found that Cyprus had violated its positive
obligations under Article 4 in two main ways. Given the regime of artiste visas in Cyprus
(inter alia making the artiste dependent on her employer for her immigrant status),
Cypriote authorities had not afforded Ms Rantseva practical and effective protection
against trafficking and exploitation. This illustrated the fact that Cyprus had failed to put in
place a legal and administrative framework to combat human trafficking. Furthermore, the
Court found that Cyprus had failed to take measures to protect Ms Rantseva despite clear
signs, which were known to the authorities, that she might have been trafficked. The Court
found Russia also in violation of Article 4, with reference to its failure to investigate how
and where Ms Rantseva had been recruited.
The case is relevant for the purposes of sexual health and rights in that it, first, makes clear
that human trafficking falls under the scope of Article 4 of the Convention and, second,
establishes an obligation for states to take positive steps to protect potential victims of
human trafficking and to investigate once there are allegations of trafficking having taken
place. Regardless of whether trafficking involves sexual or non-sexual exploitation, these
findings are important for the well being of trafficked persons. The Court chose not to
explore specifically whether Ms Rantseva had been exploited sexually; in that regard, the
Court accepted a notion of trafficking as broader than only for sexual purposes, which
corresponds with understandings of the phenomenon in international law.
Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings
The Council of Europe continued, for much longer than many other international bodies, to
employ a definition of trafficking that was confined to sexual exploitation and thereby
mostly targeted towards women and girls. 682 Its most important document, the Council of
Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, 683 adopted in May
2005 and entered into force in February 2008, finally abandoned this definition.
The Convention is intended to be a supplement to the UN Palermo Protocol, aiming
particularly at strengthening the rights of trafficked persons. 684 It covers sexual trafficking
and other kinds of trafficking (forced labor/servitude, removal of organs), national as well
as transnational. Guaranteeing gender equality is at the core of its purpose, as well as “to
protect the human rights of victims of trafficking.” (Art 1a and b). Its definition of human
trafficking is identical to that of the Palermo Protocol, including action (recruitment,
transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of persons), means (threat or use of force or
other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a
position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve
the consent of a person having control over another person), and intent/goal (for the
682 Anne Gallagher, ‘Recent Legal Developments in the Field of Human Trafficking: A Critical Review of
the 2005 European Convention’, European Journal of Migration and Law 8 (2006) 163-189, p. 171.
683 Council of Europe Treaty Series – No. 197, open for signature on 16 May 2005, in force on 1 February
2008.
684 Explanatory Report – Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, 16.V.2005, I.a.6.
220