An Introduction to Human Trafficking - United Nations Office on ...

AN INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN TRAFFICKING: VULNERABILITY, IMPACT AND ACTION
C.—Assessment of cases of trafficked adults and children,
including risk assessments
Procedures for making decisions about trafficking victims who have no legal entitlement
<strong>to</strong> be in the country where they have been trafficked vary greatly from country <strong>to</strong> country
and case <strong>to</strong> case. In some countries a de fac<strong>to</strong> definition is used <strong>to</strong> define who should
be categorized as a “trafficked person”, which focuses primarily on women trafficked in<strong>to</strong>
commercial sexual exploitation and does not consider men or boys trafficked in<strong>to</strong> forced
labour as “trafficked”.
States that have ratified the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Nations</strong> Convention against Torture of 1984 are
required <strong>to</strong> ensure that no one is repatriated <strong>to</strong> a State where they would face <strong>to</strong>rture
(either by government officials or non-state ac<strong>to</strong>rs such as traffickers), by or at the instigation
of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting
in an official capacity. The high risk of a trafficking victim being <strong>to</strong>rtured makes it virtually
obliga<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>to</strong> carry out a risk assessment before returning any trafficked person <strong>to</strong> his
or her country of origin. Such an assessment must look at possible threats from traffickers
and their associates <strong>to</strong> the security of trafficked person and his or her relatives.
However, in addition <strong>to</strong> a security assessment, a risk assessment should take broader, economic
and social fac<strong>to</strong>rs in<strong>to</strong> account, which might otherwise precipitate an individual
back in<strong>to</strong> the control of a trafficker. Re-trafficking can be the result of a returnee being
stigmatized or having no livelihood after returning <strong>to</strong> his or her place of origin. The
Committee on the Rights of the Child has outlined the fac<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>to</strong> take in<strong>to</strong> account when
considering whether a child should return <strong>to</strong> his or her country of origin, stating that children
may not be returned <strong>to</strong> a country where there are substantial grounds for believing
that there is a real risk of irreparable harm <strong>to</strong> the child. The risk assessment must take
in<strong>to</strong> account the consequences for a child if he or she faces insufficient provision of food
or health services. 48 A particular challenge concerns children whose parents are living illegally
in the country of destination, where it is usually in the child’s best interests <strong>to</strong> be
reunited with his or her parents rather than be repatriated.
In practice, repatriations have frequently taken place in the absence of any risk assessment,
leaving people who have been trafficked vulnerable upon their arrival (for example,
at an airport) <strong>to</strong> being re-trafficked. The lack of consensus among States on what the minimum
acceptable standard is concerning the treatment of trafficking victims before or after
repatriation seems <strong>to</strong> have undermined the <strong>Trafficking</strong> Pro<strong>to</strong>col’s efforts <strong>to</strong> streamline repatriation
procedures.
48
The Committee on the Rights of the Child adopted general comment No. 6 (CRC/GC/2005/6) on the treatment
of unaccompanied and separated children outside their country of origin (see http://www.ohchr.org/english/
bodies/crc/docs/GC6.pdf).
122