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

MIGRATION AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW | 269
that her immigration status would be regularised and that she
would be sent to school. In reality, the girl’s work was quickly
“lent” to a couple. She worked in their house without respite for
approximately fifteen hours per day, with no day off, for several
years, without ever receiving wages or being sent to school,
without identity papers and without her immigration status
being regularised. She was accommodated in their home and
slept in the children’s bedroom. The European Court of Human
Rights found that this situation did not amount to slavery, since
it had not been demonstrated that the couple “exercised a genuine
right of legal ownership” 1123 over the girl. Nevertheless,
the Court found that this situation constituted servitude, since
it amounted to “an obligation to provide one’s services that is
imposed by the use of coercion”, 1124 and forced labour.
c) Access to a remedy against forced labour
The right of victims of forced labour to a remedy for the violation of this
right is established under all of the human rights treaties that prohibit
forced labour. This right exists notwithstanding the legal status of a person
in a country. For example the UN Committee for the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination Against Women has emphasised the need for
access to effective legal remedies for undocumented women migrant
workers coerced into forced labour. 1125
Box 17. Human trafficking, forced labour and the
European Court
While, under the UN and Council of Europe trafficking conventions,
forced labour is one of the forms of exploitation which
characterise human trafficking, 1126 in international human
rights law the European Court of Human Rights has considered
that human trafficking in itself falls within the prohibition
of slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour. 1127 It has
1123 Siliadin v. France, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 1108, para. 122.
1124 Ibid., para. 124.
1125 See also, Concluding Observations on Saudi Arabia, CEDAW, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/SAU/CO/2,
8 April 2008, para. 24.
1126 Article 3, UN Trafficking Protocol; Article 4, Council of Europe Trafficking Convention.
1127 Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 236, para. 282. The Human Rights Committee
finds that human trafficking is a violation of Article 3 (gender equality), Article 8 (forced
labour) and Article 24 (children rights): see, Concluding Observations on Greece, CCPR, op. cit.,
fn. 240, para. 10. The Committee against Torture finds that “human trafficking for the purpose
of sexual and labour exploitation” falls under the practices prohibited by Article 16 CAT (cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment): see, Concluding Observations on Spain, CAT,
op. cit., fn. 240, para. 28. See also, Conclusion No. 90, UNHCR, op. cit., fn. 240, para. (s).