Universal-MigrationHRlaw-PG-no-6-Publications-PractitionersGuide-2014-eng

268 | PRACTITIONERS GUIDE No. 6
• any work or service exacted in cases of public emergency or calamity
threatening the life or well-being of the community. 1120
b) State obligations to prevent and investigate forced labour
The European Court of Human Rights, in particular, has emphasised that
States have obligations not only to refrain from, but also to criminalise
forced and compulsory labour practices and to effectively investigate,
prosecute and sanction those who carry out such practices. 1121 The
European Court has posited the principles of an effective investigation in
these cases:
“The requirement to investigate does not depend on a complaint from
the victim or next-of-kin: once the matter has come to the attention
of the authorities they must act of their own motion. For an investigation
to be effective, it must be independent from those implicated
in the events. It must also be capable of leading to the identification
and punishment of individuals responsible, an obligation not of result
but of means. A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition
is implicit in all cases but where the possibility of removing the individual
from the harmful situation is available, the investigation must
be undertaken as a matter of urgency. The victim or the next-of-kin
must be involved in the procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard
their legitimate interests. [. . .] In addition to the obligation to conduct
a domestic investigation into events occurring on their own territories,
Member States are also subject to a duty in cross-border trafficking
cases to cooperate effectively with the relevant authorities of other
States concerned in the investigation of events which occurred outside
their territories.” 1122
Box 16. A case of servitude and forced labour
The European Court of Human Rights considered the case of a
girl who had arrived in France from Togo at the age of 15 years
and 7 months with a person who had agreed with her father
that she would work until her air ticket had been reimbursed,
1120 See, Article 2, Forced Labour Convention (C29), ILO; Article 8.3(b) and (c) ICCPR; Article
6.2-3 ACHR; Article 11.3–4 ICRMW; Article 4.3 ECHR. Article 10 ArCHR provides for no exception,
making thus the prohibition of forced labour absolute. As illustrated by Article 11.4
ICRMW, the first duty will not apply to migrant workers, while the work due as “civil obligations”
might concern migrant workers and their families as long as it is imposed also on
citizens.
1121 See, Siliadin v. France, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 1108, paras. 89 and 112. See also, Concluding
Observations on Republic of Korea, CESCR, op. cit., fn. 244, para. 23; Concluding Observations
on Poland, CESCR, UN Doc. E/C.12/POL/CO/5, 20 November 2009, para. 23; Principles
1 and 12-17, OHCHR Trafficking Principles, op. cit., fn. 244.
1122 Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 236, para. 288–289; C.N. v. the United
Kingdom, ECtHR, Application No. 4239/08, Judgment of 13 November 2012, para. 69.