Seminar on combating and responding to sexual and gender-based violence and

trafficking in human beings in the context of asylum and migration

Bucharest, 12 April 2019

Combating trafficking in human beings and how to assist victims

Presentation by Petya Nestorova, Executive Secretary of the Council of Europe

Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings

It is a pleasure and an honour for me to address you today on behalf of the Council of Europe,
an intergovernmental organisation focused on the protection and promotion of human rights,
rule of law and democracy, which is celebrating this year its 70th anniversary. I would like to
thank UNHCR for taking the initiative of organising, together with the Council of Europe, a
series of seminars on the topic of combating sexual and gender-based violence and trafficking
in human beings in the context of asylum and migration, which have taken place since last year
in different countries (Spain, Poland, Lithuania, Italy).

The Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings places the
protection of victims of trafficking at the centre of efforts to combat trafficking in human beings
(THB), based on the conviction that this phenomenon is not only a serious crime, but also a
human rights violation and an offence to the dignity and the integrity of the human being. Ten
years after its entry into force, the Convention has 47 States Parties. The Convention provides a
comprehensive, multidisciplinary framework for tackling human trafficking, encompassing
prevention, protection of victims, prosecution of traffickers, and the promotion of partnerships
through international co-operation and co-operation with civil society. The positive obligations
enshrined in the Convention require States Parties to put in place adequate identification
procedures which enable the detection of victims of trafficking, including among people seeking
international protection, and to enable them to exercise a series of rights (assistance,
protection, safe return, compensation and redress). The Convention also recognises the
importance for States Parties to enable migration to take place legally.

One of the important added-values of the Convention is the setting up of a mechanism to

monitor the States’ compliance with the obligations contained in the Convention. This
monitoring mechanism, consisting of the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in
Human Beings (GRETA) and the Committee of the Parties to the Convention, works to ensure
that the Convention’s provisions are effectively implemented. Each State Party to the
Convention is periodically evaluated by an independent group of experts, GRETA, and the
evaluation reports are published together with the national authorities’ comments.

Romania was one of the first countries to ratify the Convention and has already been evaluated
twice by GRETA, the respective reports being published in 2012 and 2016. Later this year,
GRETA will launch the third round of evaluation of the Convention in respect of Romania, which
has a thematic focus of victims’ access to justice and effective remedies.

In addition to drawing up country evaluation reports, GRETA publishes annual reports on its
activities. In 2015, GRETA decided to dedicate a thematic section in its 5th General Report to
the identification and protection of victims of trafficking among asylum seekers, refugees and
migrants, basing itself on the findings from its country evaluation reports. The reports noted
 2

that migrants frequently face barriers in accessing assistance, making them an easy prey for
traffickers and exploiters in the countries where they seek asylum or in transit countries. The
increasing proportion of women and girls among asylum seekers and migrants heightens the
risk of trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation, as well as forced marriage.
Unaccompanied and separated children are particularly vulnerable to being caught up in the
web of traffickers and are less likely to be identified as victims of trafficking in screening
procedures.

In my presentation, I will focus on several provisions of the CoE Anti-Trafficking Convention

which are relevant to the detection and assistance of victims of trafficking in the context of
asylum and migration, and provide examples of their implementation from different countries
evaluated by GRETA, including Romania:
 Identification (Article 10)
 Assistance (Article 12)
 Recovery and reflection period (Article 13)
 Residence permit (Article 14)
 Repatriation and return (Article 16)
 Non-refoulement (Article 40, paragraph 4)
 Trafficking in children

Identification (Article 10)

The issue of victim identification is of fundamental importance. Without trafficked people being
identified as such, they cannot benefit from the assistance and protection measures provided
for under the Convention. It is therefore vital for State Parties to the Convention to ensure that
an effective system for proactive identification of victims of trafficking is put in place,
irrespective of their nationality, immigration status and form of exploitation.

Identifying a trafficking victim may takes time and effort and therefore Article 10 the
Convention provides that identification shall be performed in collaboration between different
authorities and relevant support organisations, and that when the competent authorities have
reasonable grounds to believe that a person has been a victim of trafficking, he/she must not
be removed from the country until the identification process is completed and must receive the
assistance envisaged under Article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention. The CoE
Convention is the first legal instrument to unequivocally recognise the role of non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) in identifying and supporting victims of trafficking.

The Convention also provides that no link should be made between co-operation with the
authorities in the investigation and/or criminal proceedings and identification as a victims and
provision of assistance.

Law enforcement efforts to combat irregular migration are too often disconnected from the
legal obligation to identify victims of trafficking in human beings, with negative consequences
for the protection of such victims and the prosecution of traffickers.

In general, GRETA’s monitoring of the implementation of the Convention has highlighted

important gaps in the identification and protection of victims of trafficking among asylum
seekers and irregular migrants. There is lack of relevant and reliable data on how many victims
 3

of trafficking were identified during asylum procedures, but also how many victims of THB
received international protection, refugee status or subsidiary protection.

In its second report on Romania, GRETA noted that the procedure for identifying victims of
trafficking among foreign nationals is not well developed, and urged the authorities to provide
training to staff of the Directorate of Asylum and Integration, and to expand the use of tools
developed by UNHCR and NGOs for identifying vulnerable persons, including victims of THB,
among asylum seekers. At the time of GRETA’s visit in 2015, no victims of THB had been
identifying among asylum seekers.

In Italy, UNHCR has assisted the authorities in developing Guidelines for the identification of
victims of trafficking among applicants for international protection. The Guidelines provide a
Standard Operating Procedure including a step-by-step explanation of the process, flowchart,
indicators and practical suggestions about how to perform interviews. The identification process
involves specialised NGOs. While the identification is on-going, with the person’s agreement,
the examination of the asylum claim is suspended in order to allow time for establishing a
relationship of trust and permit the person to reflect. The two protection procedures can
continue in parallel, i.e. a person who is identified and assisted as a victim of THB can obtain
international protection. Since the issuing of the Guidelines, the number of victims of THB
identifying amongst asylum seekers in Italy has increased.

In Sweden, the Migration Agency, which is responsible for asylum applications and for granting
work permits to third-country nationals, has produced guidelines for identifying presumed
victims of THB in the asylum process, as well as among applicants for work permits, which are
published in an internal handbook.

GRETA has stressed the State’s obligation to identify victims of trafficking among asylum
seekers who are subject to the Dublin Regulation1 procedure, in order to avoid any risk of
reprisals from traffickers or re-trafficking and to ensure that the State’s obligations to provide a
recovery and reflection period, assistance and protection to victims in accordance with Articles
12 and 13 of the Convention are fulfilled. GRETA notes that Article 17.1 of the Dublin
Regulation III permits States to unilaterally take responsibility for the determination of an
asylum claim, even where the objective responsibility criteria allow for a request to be
submitted to another Member State of the EU.

GRETA has also focused on the identification of trafficked persons among irregular migrants
facing forced return/expulsion in detention facilities.2 In the first report on Italy, for instance,
GRETA was concerned by the absence of clear procedures for the screening of persons placed
in identification and expulsion centres for signs of trafficking. GRETA urged the Italian
authorities to improve the identification of victims of trafficking among irregular migrants and
asylum seekers, including through clear, binding procedures to be followed and through training
of immigration police officers and staff working in first assistance and reception centres,
reception centres for migrants, expulsion centres and reception centres for asylum seekers.

1 Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing
the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for
international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (Dublin
III Regulation).
2 For example, see GRETA’s reports on Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Spain and the Slovak Republic.
 4

Assistance to victims of trafficking (Article 12)

Assistance should be provided to all victims of trafficking, regardless of nationality, social status,
gender or other grounds, and should encompass access to various support services, as provided
in Article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention. Assistance and protection programmes
should be implemented in accordance with the needs of victims of trafficking and quality
standards, in order to ensure the victims’ physical, psychological and social recovery and their
reintegration upon return to their country of origin. Furthermore, assistance to victims of THB
must not be made conditional on their willingness to act as witnesses.

Moreover, the availability of qualified interpretation and specialised legal assistance are crucial
for building trust with victims, helping them understand their situation and increasing the
chances of successful investigation and prosecution.

Although the CoE Anti-Trafficking Convention establishes a comprehensive system of assistance

for victims of THB, its scope is rather short-to-mid-term. In contrast, the possibility of obtaining
international protection under the Refugee Convention 1951 offers a longer-term solution and
may be of particular importance to trafficked persons who may be at risk of persecution if
returned to their country of origin.

Generally speaking, GRETA’s evaluation reports point to a shortage of safe and appropriate
accommodation for victims of trafficking. In some countries, there are shelters especially set up
for victims of trafficking, while in others assistance is provided in shelters or crisis centres for
victims of domestic violence. Most often, victims receive assistance in shelters set up and run by
civil society organisations with at least some funding from the state or local authorities.

In its second report on Romania, GRETA noted that the provisions of the Anti-Trafficking Law
678/2001, which determines the measures of protection and assistance to victims of THB, do
not apply to third-country nationals. Foreign victims of trafficking are entitled to accommodation
during the reflection period without being the subject of an administrative detention order due
to their irregular situation. The accommodation, which should consist of special facilities in the
administrative detention centres where victims of trafficking should be placed separately from
detained foreign nationals, must be approved by the General Director of the Romanian
Immigration Inspectorate. These centres have a closed regime as they are mainly used to
accommodate irregular foreigners. They do not have separate facilities for trafficking victims,
who consequently are held under conditions no different from detention. Foreign victims of
trafficking who ask for international protection in Romania can be accommodated in designated
centres organised in accordance with Law No. 122/2006 on Asylum.

Consequently, GRETA urged the authorities to:

- ensure that any person identified as a presumed victim of THB is provided with the
assistance and protection measures provided for in the Convention, regardless of
whether an investigation into human trafficking is opened or the victim co-operation
therein;
- provide a sufficient number of shelter places around the country for all victims of
trafficking who need safe accommodation for the duration necessary to achieve
their recovery, based on individual needs assessment;
 5

- ensure that foreign victims of trafficking are moved from administrative detention
centres and are accommodated in specialised shelters for victims of trafficking;
- ensure adequate funding and staff to work with victims of THB and facilitate the
reintegration of victims of trafficking into society by providing them with vocational
training and access to the labour market;
- guarantee access to health care to all victims of THB.

The State’s obligations of due diligence are brought into sharp relief where asylum seekers go
missing from reception centres often within a short time after arrival. The absence of reception
centres for women and girls only heightens such risk. Such gaps in protection measures were
noted by GRETA in Ireland, for example, where victims of trafficking are accommodated in
asylum reception centres under the system of direct provision. GRETA noted that the mixing of
men and women can expose vulnerable women to sexual harassment, grooming and
exploitation. Staff who are employed by private contractors as well as visiting medical staff are
not sensitised to the situation and needs of victims of trafficking and are generally not aware of
who the victims of trafficking are, which creates difficulties to apply a personalised approach.
Further, there are possibilities for traffickers to contact victims as the addresses of the asylum
reception centres are known, which may cause further distress to victims. GRETA urged the
Irish authorities to review the policy of accommodating suspected victims of trafficking in
accommodation centres for asylum seekers and to consider setting up specialised shelters for
victims of trafficking, with the involvement of NGOs as support providers.

Recovery and reflection period (Article 13)

The provision of a recovery and reflection period is one of the important safeguards under the
Convention. It should be granted to any presumed victim of THB, when there are reasonable
grounds to believe that a person is a victim of THB, i.e. prior to their formal identification as a
victim, and should not be made conditional on the victim's co-operation with the investigative or
prosecution authorities. The purpose of the period is to make it possible for them to recover
from the exploitation suffered and take a decision on whether to co-operate with the competent
authorities.

There were no statistics on the number of recovery and reflection periods issues in Romania.
Civil society representatives met by GRETA noted that the reflection period is not applied
systematically, though victims may be asked to sign documents stating that the possibility of
benefiting from such a period has been explained to them.

GRETA considered that the Romanian authorities should take steps to ensure that all possible
foreign victims of trafficking are offered an effective recovery and reflection period and all the
measures of protection and assistance envisaged in Article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the
Convention during this period. Officers performing identification should be issued with clear
instructions stressing the need to offer the recovery and reflection period as defined in the
Convention, i.e. not making it conditional on the victim’s co-operation and offering it to victims
before formal statements are made to investigators. Further, the Romanian authorities should
establish a system for recording the recovery and reflection periods granted to victims of THB.
 6

In Norway, the assessment whether a person is a victim of trafficking and should be granted a
recovery and reflection period is done by the immigration authorities (UDI) based on section 8-
3 of the Immigration Regulations. The emphasis of the assessment is on whether there are
grounds to believe that the person is subject to human trafficking and whether the person
intends to accept help and participate in the measures offered. There is no obligation for victims
to co-operate in an investigation or act as witnesses during the recovery and reflection period.
The period lasts up to six months and cannot be renewed or form the basis for a permanent
residence permit. It can be granted to foreign nationals without legal residence in Norway,
persons who hold residence permits issued by other Schengen countries, EU/EEA nationals,
asylum seekers without a decision on their case, and asylum seekers who have received a final
rejection, if new information providing clear indications that the person is a victim of trafficking
emerges. However, the recovery and reflection period is incompatible with an asylum
application, which is problematic as victims of trafficking who apply for asylum after they have
been granted such a period lose certain entitlements, such as psychological assistance or the
right to work.

Residence permits (Article 14)

Article 14 of the Convention allows Parties to make the issuing of a temporary residence permit
conditional on the victims’ co-operation in the investigation/prosecution and/or to grant it on
account of the personal situation of the victim. The latter scenario takes in a range of situations,
such as the victim’s safety, state of health and family situation, and tallies with the human-
rights based approach to combating human trafficking. There are situations in which victims
might be afraid to co-operate in the investigation because of threats from the traffickers or are
unable to do so due to trauma they have suffered as a consequence of the trafficking
experience. Victims’ fear may also be reinforced by victims not being sufficiently protected
against intimidation by traffickers.

Further, in order to help victims regain or develop their autonomy and avoid re-trafficking, it is
important that they be allowed access to the labour market without discrimination on grounds
of national origin if they are legally resident.

The Convention also requires that States Parties ensure that the granting of a residence permit
shall be without prejudice to the right to seek and enjoy asylum (Article 14, paragraph 4)). The
human rights approach enshrined in the Council of Europe’s Anti-Trafficking Convention
requires States Parties to take into account the risk of persecutions of victims of trafficking, as
well as to ensure that all foreign nationals identified as victims of trafficking are informed about
their right to request international protection and have access to fair and efficient asylum
procedures.

However, States do not always recognise that the identification of victims of THB and the
asylum protection mechanisms can and should run in parallel. Not all States Parties to the
Convention allow for asylum applications to be made while potential victims of trafficking are in
an identification procedure, which amounts to a violation of their international protection
obligations. In the context of victims of trafficking, asylum procedures are still largely
approached as a ‘fallback option’. This is particularly the case in situations where assistance to
victims is dependent upon co-operation with law enforcement and ceases due to the closure of
the case.
 7

In Norway, a victim of trafficking may be granted a residence permit on humanitarian grounds

through the asylum procedure. GRETA was informed that the immigration authorities consider
asylum applications in conformity with the criteria of the Convention relating to the Status of
Refugees and international human rights instruments, as well as section 28 of the Immigration
Act. Risk of persecution upon return, in the form of re-trafficking and/or other threats by the
exploiters, may cause the individual to be recognised as a refugee. Subsidiary to the asylum
assessment, the immigration authorities assess humanitarian considerations or a special
affiliation to Norway. This also applies to former victims of trafficking in human beings.
However, according to a representative of the Norwegian Bar Association, there is no evidence
that vulnerability to trafficking would be taken into account in asylum decisions as called for by
the UNHCR 2006 Guidelines on the application of refugee status to victims of trafficking, and in
any event, it falls on the applicant to prove the risk of re-trafficking.

In Sweden, being a victim of THB in itself does not constitute grounds for being granted
asylum, but may provide grounds for an asylum or protection claim, if all elements of the
refugee definition or requirements of subsidiary protection are met. Victims of trafficking are
more likely to be granted subsidiary protection than asylum, as the nexus with a Refugee
Convention ground is not readily recognised in trafficking-related asylum claims.

In France, trafficking victims who cannot or do not wish to lodge a complaint with law
enforcement agencies are often encouraged by local authorities and NGOs to apply for asylum,
which enables them to regularise more easily their presence in France in the short term.
However, an asylum request does not rule out the possibility of being granted trafficking victim
status within the asylum procedure itself. Where there is a risk that a victim would fall back in
the hands of traffickers in the country where he or she had first applied for asylum, the
procedure under the Dublin regulation is suspended. According to CNDA, since 2015, around 40
persons from Nigeria and around 10 from Albania and Ukraine have obtained refugee status on
grounds of their membership of a social group at risk of persecution linked to the fact that they
have been trafficking victims. In addition, subsidiary protection was granted to a trafficking
victim from Guinea and a victim from Angola on the grounds that the countries of origin could
not provide protection from trafficking networks.

Reference should be made to a case from France, which concerned a young Nigerian woman
from Edo State who was trafficked to France in 2009 and forced to engage in prostitution. She
denounced the traffickers to the police who subsequently found the information provided
“unusable” (French: “inexploitable”) for the purposes of building a case against the traffickers.
This resulted in no action being taken against the alleged perpetrators and left the woman
concerned without adequate assistance and protection as a victim of THB. The victim applied
for asylum in June 2010, but her application was denied at first instance in August 2010.
Following an appeal, in a decision of 24 March 2015,3 the National Court of Asylum (CNDA)
granted refugee status to the Nigerian woman concerned. As a result, membership of a social
group has thus been recognised as grounds for asylum by France’s National Court of Asylum for
Nigerian women originating from Edo State, as well as women from Albania, Kosovo* and
Ukraine who are victims of human trafficking.

3 CNDA 24 March 2015 Mlle E. n° 10012810

* All reference to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population, in this text shall be understood
in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of
Kosovo.
 8

The decision of the CNDA illustrates the need for a more nuanced understanding of THB
victimhood as possible grounds for recognising refugee status under the Refugee Convention
1951 and the intersection between the two legal regimes. The determination that someone is
not a victim of THB has negative implications for subsequent asylum procedures. Firstly, a
formal determination of non-victimhood by one state agency may be binding on decision
making of other state agencies and, secondly, refusal to identify a person as a victim of THB
may have negative implications on the assessment of the credibility of the victim in the context
of future asylum procedures.

Repatriation and return (Article 16)

Article 16 of the Convention requires Parties to ensure that the return of victims of trafficking
must be carried out with due regard for their rights, safety and dignity and for the status of any
legal proceedings related to the fact that the person is a victim of THB, and in accordance with
the states’ obligation of international protection. Child victims must not be returned if there is
indication, following a risk and security assessment, that such return would not be in the best
interests of the child.

GRETA has expressed concerns about the efficacy of individual risk assessments prior to the
return of trafficked people to their home countries. If the actual threats are not identified then a
person may well end up being repatriated to a situation of real personal risk that could amount
to refoulement. It is therefore important that full and competent risk assessments are carried
out before anyone is returned. This will reduce the likelihood of anyone being returned to their
home country in violation of the returning State’s international protection obligations.

In the report on Switzerland, while welcoming the existence of a voluntary return scheme
specifically for victims of trafficking in human beings, GRETA considered that the Swiss
authorities should take steps to ensure that victims of trafficking who are irregular migrants are
not subjected to forced return in contravention of the obligations stemming from the principle
of non-refoulement, and are identified and assisted accordingly.

Another risk to trafficked persons arises through the misuse of expedited removal procedures.
One problem with these is that, by their very nature, they allow only limited time to assess each
individual case. There may not be enough time to identify the trafficked person. Even if
identified as such, they may nevertheless be wrongfully removed because of a failure
adequately to assess the risks to them of return. GRETA expressed particular concerns about
this in its report on Sweden.

Non-refoulement (Article 40, paragraph 4)

GRETA is very concerned about the negative effects that forced returns can have on victims of
trafficking, in particular when there is a lack of follow-up after their return and risks of re-
victimisation and re-trafficking. Pursuant to Article 16, paragraphs 5 and 6, of the Convention,
Parties shall establish repatriation programmes, involving relevant national or international
institutions and NGOs, which aim at avoiding re-victimisation, make efforts to favour the
reintegration of victims into the society of the State of return, and make available to victims
contact information of structures that can assist them in the country of return. If these
obligations cannot be met, either because of lack of capacity or lack of co-operation from the
 9

authorities of the country of return, the execution of forced removals may run contrary to the
obligation of non-refoulement contained in Article 40, paragraph 4, of the Convention.

In Italy, GRETA was concerning by reports according to which women possible victims of
trafficking in human beings were being returned from Italy to Nigeria on forced return flights.
For example, on 17 September 2015, during a join return operation by air from Rome to Lagos
(Nigeria), organised and co-ordinated by the European Agency for the Management of
Operational Co-operation at the External Border of Member States of the European Union
(Frontex), about 20 Nigerian women detained at the CIE Ponte Galeria, Rome, some of whom
were described as victims of trafficking and some were pregnant following rape during the trip
from Nigeria to Libya.

The Territorial Commission for Recognition of International Protection in Rome had interviewed
all the women in early September and had asked the specialised NGO BeFree to carry out
further interviews in order to find out if there were indicators of trafficking. The interviews by
BeFree had brought to light the existence of criminal networks that had recruited and
transported the women and were expecting them in Italy. The women had displayed various
signs of being trafficked: they were very young, almost illiterate, from extremely poor families,
appeared to be traumatised, found it difficult to speak about the journey, in particular their
experiences in Libya, and had already been given phone numbers to call on arrival in Italy,
suggesting that their arrival and movements were highly controlled. Thanks to the interviews
with BeFree, 13 of the women received international protection, but in the meantime, 20
women were included in the forced return flight on 17 September 2015 despite the fact that
they had appealed the rejection decisions by the Territorial Commission and the expulsion
orders. Such appeals do not result in an automatic suspension of the expulsion order, but
require the adoption of an order by the competent court suspending the expulsion order.

The readmission agreement between Italy and Nigeria establishes simplified identification and
return procedures. Nigerian officials are involved in the procedure for issuing identity
documents to persons detained at the CIE and the identification of Nigerian citizens occurred
very quickly. NGOs have expressed concern that children may be subjected to forced removals,
because of errors in age assessments.

GRETA urged the Italian authorities to review the legislation in order to ensure that there is an
automatic suspensive effect of appeals against removal orders and to provide the persons to be
removed, their lawyers and NGOs working with them with full information of the planned
removal operation.

GRETA also urges the Italian authorities to conduct individual risk assessments prior to the
return of trafficked persons to their countries of origin, in co-operation with the countries of
return, international organisations and NGOs, with a view to ensuring compliance with the non-
refoulement obligation under Article 40, paragraph 4, of the Convention and the UNHCR’s
Guidelines on the Application of the 1951 Refugee Convention to Victims of Trafficking4, as well
as to facilitate their reintegration in countries of origin.

4 UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection: The application of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention
and/or 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees to victims of trafficking, HCR/GIP/06/07, 7 April 2006.
 10

Trafficking in children

The Convention provides for special measures and procedures for children in the context of
victim identification, such as in case of age disputes and in respect of unaccompanied children,
who should be appointed a legal guardian. Assistance to child victims should be adapted to
their special needs. To take care of child victims, shelters specialised in receiving and assisting
child victims should be set up. Specialist care and procedures which take account of a child’s
age, gender, background and past experiences were identified as crucial in fulfilling the
obligation under the CoE Anti-Trafficking Convention to provide effective assistance to child
victims of THB. This includes the setting up of special referral mechanisms which take account
of children’s needs and experiences.

In general, GRETA’s monitoring of the Convention has revealed important gaps in the fulfilment
of obligations under the Convention related to children, which is one of the focuses of the
second round of evaluation of the Convention.

Unaccompanied children who seek refuge in Europe are at a heightened risk of falling victim to
THB. Their age, dependency, presence in a foreign country and lack of knowledge of the local
language make them particularly vulnerable to exploitation.

It remains a matter of serious concern that in several States Parties, significant numbers of
unaccompanied children, including child victims of trafficking and possible victims, go missing
within a short time after arrival. Such patters of disappearance indicate that children may be at
risk of trafficking, and re-trafficking in many cases. In the context of quick disappearances, it is
also not possible to establish whether the child is already in the process of being trafficked and
what are his/her concrete individual protection needs, including that of a possible international
protection.

In Italy, GRETA expressed concern at the ‘alarming’ numbers of unaccompanied minors going
missing, echoing similar concerns voiced by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and
the UN Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings. GRETA urged the authorities to take
steps to address the problem of disappearance of unaccompanied minors by providing suitable
safe accommodation and assigning adequately trained legal guardians. This recommendation is
echoed in several other country evaluations where GRETA has called for urgent reforms and
expressed concern at the lack of consistency and delays in practice in the appointment of
guardians for unaccompanied minors.

In Norway, followed targeted measures to prevent unaccompanied minors going missing from
care, the Child Welfare Act introduced in August 2012 provided for unaccompanied minors to be
held for up to six months in a closed institution without their consent in cases where the child is
at risk of being subject to human trafficking and in order to prevent the child being contacted
by traffickers. GRETA has stressed that, in line with Article 12.7 of the Convention, the
accommodation of presumed child victims of trafficking has to be appropriate in terms of their
specific needs. The placement of a child in an institution pursuant to section 4-29 of the Child
Welfare Act in practice amounts to detention whereas paragraph 155 of the Explanatory
Memorandum to the Convention and Article 37 (b) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the
 11

Child, according to which any detention of children shall be used only as a measure of last
resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.

Although unaccompanied children should be provided with a legal guardian as a matter of

priority, the discussions showed that practical aspects as well as the efficiency of the procedure
vary among countries. It was highlighted that the main challenge is caused by the differences in
the definitional understanding of a ‘legal guardian’ between states. This is often aggravated by
a lack of effective mechanisms for the appointment of legal guardians in some countries. It was
stressed that the appointment of a legal guardian can have a preventive effect on the
disappearances of unaccompanied children.

Concluding remarks

The risks of the increased arrival of migrants and asylum seekers in Europe being exploited by
criminal networks to target vulnerable people and subject them to trafficking and exploitation,
are high, and therefore a clear political commitment is needed to sustain and strengthen the
efforts to combat human trafficking by following the human-rights based approach of the
Council of Europe Convention.

States Parties to the CoE Anti-Trafficking Convention must put in place reception and screening
mechanisms which enable the identification of victims of trafficking among asylum seekers and
migrants, in particular women and children who are especially vulnerable, and to adequately
train the competent authorities, including at immigration detention centres and reception
centres for asylum seekers. It is essential for State Parties to uphold their commitment to
protecting victims of trafficking, following a gender-sensitive approach, and ensure that
migration policies and measures to combat migrant smuggling do not put at risk the lives and
safety of trafficked people and do not prejudice the application of the protection and assistance
measures provided by the Convention.