Executive Summary

The Dutch CEDAW-Network and Vereniging voor Vrouw en Recht Clara Wichmann (VVR) request the Committee to consider the following when elaborating a General Recommendation on CEDAW Art.6:

1. Provide interpretive guidance on the Palermo Protocol Art. 3 definition of trafficking.
2. Acknowledge the agency of survivors and include them in policy development.
3. Discourage anti-trafficking measures that negatively impact the human rights of trafficked persons, in particular female migrants and sex workers.
4. Frame discussions of root causes of trafficking intentionally.
5. Encourage gender-sensitive anti-trafficking policies that take into account the multiple types of violence inflicted on trafficked women and girls, and the intersectional impact of violence.
6. Insist on labor regulations that protect women’s rights in all sectors where women work.
7. Call for gender-sensitive migration policies focused on providing women with more options, not restricting migration.
8. Provide clear and practical requirements for implementing a rights-centered approach.
9. Insist that State Parties ground labor and migration policies on empirical evidence.

Introduction

We submit the following position paper in response to the Concept Note prepared for the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women on its elaboration of a General Recommendation on Trafficking in Women and Girls in the Context of Global Migration (hereinafter, the “Concept Note”).  We appreciate the Committee’s efforts to provide clarity to Article 6 of CEDAW and the particular attention the Concept Note has drawn to the need for “long-term, comprehensive survivor-centered services.”[1] As a network of non-profit providers working on the ground, we are nonetheless concerned that the human rights of female survivors of trafficking are eclipsed in the Concept Note, or even undermined, by an over-riding anti-trafficking message that focuses on criminalization and engenders restrictive migration and labor policies. We remind the Committee of the first principle from 2002 Recommended Principles and Guidelines: anti-trafficking measures should not have an “adverse impact on the rights and dignity of persons, including those who have been trafficked.”[2] We submit the following recommendations to outline our specific areas of concern and provide guidance on a gender-sensitive, evidence-led and rights-based response to trafficking.

1. Provide interpretive guidance on the Palermo Protocol Art. 3 definition of trafficking.

To define trafficking, the Concept Note cites to Art. 3 of the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (the “Palermo Protocol”).[3] Due to the many compromises that accompanied the Palermo Protocol drafting process, many provisions of the resulting definition are ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations.[4] The definition was intended to leave State Parties leeway for implementation, but has led to significant variation in enforcement policies.[5] Rather than attempting to redefine trafficking, the General Recommendation should be used to influence interpretations of the Palermo Protocol consistent with the human rights enshrined in the CEDAW convention. For example, the Palermo Protocol makes a distinction between exploitation of exploitation of prostitution and forced labor. The core of the crime of trafficking is not the nature of the work performed, but on the deceptive and coercive conditions of recruitment and work for the purpose of exploitation.[6] Prostitution, or sex-work, is labor, while trafficking is violence, deception, and exploitation.[7] Women can consent to migrate or to work in the sex-industry, but no person can consent to forced labor, slavery or servitude because the deception and coercion involved negates the consent.

This unnecessary distinction between exploitative sex-work and exploitative labor can be found in multiple paragraphs of the Concept Note.[8] We encourage the Committee to focus on violence and deceit, rather than the nature of work. Furthermore, the General Recommendation should encourage State Parties to expand protection afforded to victims of trafficking to all victims of forced labor and services (including forced sexual services), slavery or practices similar to slavery (including forced and servile marriage and the exploitation of children) and servitude (including sexual servitude), no matter whether they arrived in that situation through trafficking or through other means, which responsibilities, we note, flow form existing obligations under international law.[9]

The Concept Note’s encouragement that Article 6 of CEDAW should be “read with” certain other complementary legal regimes, including the 1949 Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others (the “1949 Convention”), is troubling. The 1949 Convention calls upon states to criminalize prostitution, regardless of the consent of the woman involved. “Trafficking” and “exploitation of prostitution” are presented as indistinct acts. We request most adamantly that the Committee strike any reference to the 1949 Convention from the General Recommendation. This antiquated agreement promotes archaic constructions of women as passive victims, undermines women’s choice of employment, and criminalizes their work.[10] The 1949 Convention is fundamentally incompatible with the aims of CEDAW to uphold the human rights of women and end discrimination against women.

2. Acknowledge the agency of survivors and include them in policy development.

The Committee should ensure that the language of the General Recommendation does not undermine women’s empowerment and agency by contributing to a narrative of women as victims incapable of making decisions for themselves. The Committee should pay careful attention not to reproduce assumptions about women as passive and in constant need of protection. Such stereotypes can fuel exclusionary migration policies that limit women’s freedom of movement in the guise of keeping a woman “safe” at “home.”[11] Accordingly, the General Recommendation must avoid language that unnecessarily replicates negative stereotypes regarding women’s agency. For example, women being “lured” by traffickers (e.g., paras. 25, 28, 32). Consider instead “defrauded,” “coerced by force,” or similar terms that acknowledge a competent adult has been subject to malfeasance.

It is concerning that nowhere in the Concept Note are women acknowledged as active agents of change and empowerment. The General Recommendation must acknowledge women as the authorities in their own lives and develop policies that help women make it to their final destinations. We support the Concept Note’s emphasis on fostering survivors’ political participation (para 41) and educational opportunities (para 44). However, paragraph 41 also implies that education facilitates women participating “as decision-makers in national and local anti-trafficking strategies” (para 44). We emphasize that survivors of varying educational backgrounds should be involved in policy development. Their experience qualifies them to be the experts in policy drafting. Survivors of trafficking should be directly involved in design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of anti-trafficking policy, including every stage of drafting the General Recommendation.

Of course, the acknowledgment of a woman’s authority over her own life must be accompanied by a discussion of the structural disadvantage, discrimination and oppression that women suffer worldwide. The oppressions in women’s lives are multiple and intersecting.[12] The Committee should safeguard that any links made between specific cultural practices and women’s oppression do not have the inadvertent effect of discriminating on the basis of race, religion, or national origin (e.g., para 40).

3. Discourage anti-trafficking measures that negatively impact the human rights of trafficked persons, in particular female migrants and sex workers.

Since the passage of the Palermo Protocol, the anti-trafficking policies of State Parties have often focused their efforts on criminalization (of trafficking or sex-work) and restrictive migration policies, instead of focusing on service provision to survivors of trafficking.[13] As noted by the UN Secretary General, though restrictive migration policies are often introduced to prevent trafficking, they can in fact increase the risk of trafficking: “The lack of sufficient accessible, legal pathways for migration, especially for lowskilled employment where migrant women tend to be concentrated, and restrictive immigration schemes by migrant-receiving countries, also increase the risks of trafficking.”[14] Regarding criminalization of sex-work, repressive policing of sex-work has been shown to disrupt sex-workers’ safety, access to health services and access to justice.[15] Furthermore, measuring the effect of criminalization on demand for sex-work has been shown to pose serious methodological problems. In a review of qualitative and quantitative data regarding the effects of the 1999 Swedish ban on purchasing sex, the researchers first observation was the “difficulty of accurately assessing whether prohibition has affected the extent of prostitution.”[16]

The Committee should exercise caution not to replicate or foster these restrictive tendencies of state practice. Efforts to address trafficking should not negatively impact the human rights of trafficked persons, in particular female migrants and sex workers.[17] It is concerning that of the ten sub-themes suggested in para 54 of the Concept Note, only one of those sub-themes deals directly with the human rights of women.[18] Also concerning is the repeated reference to “impunity” of perpetrators (paras 15, 25, 32, 34, 52, 54) despite the current prevailing approach to anti-trafficking that emphasizes criminalization of perpetrators. Such language, unaccompanied by statistics and evidence, engenders reactionary restrictions, rather than evidence-based responses grounded human rights support. Similarly, whole paragraphs referencing “unprecedented global migration flows” (para 12) feed repressive government policies to restrict migration, rather than developing migration policies that assist women to come forward without fear of deportation.[19] Further, repeated references to address the “demand side” of the commercial sex industry can foster repressive policies that criminalize women’s sex-work, rather than providing safety for women at work (para 27).[20] The General Recommendation should provide a framework for policies that increase women’s options and opportunities, rather than restrict, repress, or criminalize the few options they have.

4. Frame discussions of root causes of trafficking intentionally.

In order to effectively address the problem of trafficking, the General Recommendation needs to have a very clear and accurate conception of the root causes of trafficking. The Concept Note appropriately calls for increased attention to the root causes of trafficking, such as poverty (paras. 17, 51).[21] However, it is important that the discussion of root causes is not conflated with increased flow of migrant labor (para. 12) and demand for trafficked labor (para. 15). Framing root causes in these terms is highly problematic in that they can lead to counter-productive solutions, namely, restrictive immigration policy and restrictive sex-work regulation. Addressing root causes, such as poverty, through development initiatives aimed at employing, educating and empowering women in their countries of origin is one important approach, but when analyzing root causes, it is important to also note the receiving state’s complicity in fostering an environment for trafficking. When a state enacts legal barriers between a demand for cheap labor and supply of impoverished individuals seeking employment, the effects will be an unregulated market to match the supply with the demand.[22] Conscious of the link between migration and demand for women’s cheap labor, counter-trafficking strategies must offer protection in migration law, but also in spheres of migrant women’s labor, such as domestic work and sex work, bolstering their ability to escape the violence of trafficking.[23]

Instead of fostering restriction, the General Recommendation should frame its discussion of root causes to engender a human rights based response. To this end, the Committee must provide a strong foundation for labor and migration policies that are rights-based, evidence-led and gender-sensitive. We encourage the Committee to staunchly commit its General Recommendation to the human rights agenda that it embodies. The General Recommendation should make clear that addressing the human rights violations perpetrated on trafficked women is the cornerstone of CEDAW Art. 6.

5. Encourage gender-sensitive anti-trafficking policies that take into account the multiple types of violence inflicted on trafficked women and girls, and the intersectional impact of violence.

Trafficking is a crime and human rights violation that is not gender-neutral. Its contributing factors, the ways women are trafficked, the sectors in which they are exploited and the consequences are gender-specific. The gender-based violence women and girls suffer in a trafficking situation can be plural and intersectional. [24] The General Recommendation must clearly address the role of mixed exploitations and gender-discrimination involved. A situation of trafficking will not always fit into text-book definitions, nor occupy one sphere of exploitation.[25] For example, domestic workers may by raped by their employer, or women in forced marriages may be exploited for their labor. In order to ensure proper identification and service-provision for trafficked women and girls, the General Recommendation must refute easy categorization, instead encouraging governments to form policies that acknowledge the overlapping exploitation of women and girls, and create a legal environment where women are given more options, more rights, and safety to leave situations of exploitation and dependency.

6. Insist on labor regulations that protect women’s rights in all sectors where women work.

Trafficking is a sequences of processes of violence and exploitation, in which governments can play a complicit role. Female labor sectors populated by migrant labor, such as domestic work and sex-work, are rarely recognized as work, and as such, they do not benefit from protection of labor law.[26] The lack of regulation in these sectors is also tied to women’s vulnerability under migration law.[27] Migrants need to be able to organize to protect their labor rights without fear of deportation, just as sex-workers need to be able to organize without fear of criminalization. Governments must remove obstacles for migrant workers and sex-workers to exercise their right to freedom of association, and further, proactively implement gender-sensitive labor policies to provide safety in their workplaces.[28]

Para 45 of the Concept Note highlights the relevance of Art. 11 CEDAW on equality of opportunity in employment. The Concept Note, however, does not capture the full scope of this provision, merely encouraging women to “seek opportunities in the formal labor market and benefit from labor protections” and that “workplaces must be regulated so that labor standards are in adherence to international standards and monitored for compliance.” The General Recommendation should also focus on the importance of acknowledging the spaces of domestic work and sex-work as “workplaces” also deserving of such protection. Such and interpretation is in-line with CEDAW Art.11(1)(c), which acknowledges women’s “right to free choice of profession and employment.” Rather than simply condemning these sectors for their lack of labor protection (para 29), the General Recommendation must insist on rights-protection in spheres of women’s work.

7. Call for gender-sensitive migration policies focused on providing women with more options, not restricting migration.

Gender-sensitive migration policy can be applied to all stages of the migration process: from traveling to the host country; to being present in the host country with valid immigration status; to seeking protection and assistance to end exploitation as an irregular migrant. To begin with, before entry into the host state, there are currently a lack of viable migration pathways for women migrating from impoverished areas.[29] As discussed above in reference to root causes, this disconnect between supply labor force and demand for cheap labor leads to a rise in trafficking. However, visas that trap women in a dependent relationship with her sponsor, whether that sponsor is an employer or spouse, can facilitate and maintain trafficking.[30]

Thus, a gender-sensitive approach also needs to be attuned to the way various migration statuses can enable trafficking. In cases of family migration, a foreign spouse is often granted a residency permit that is dependent on her continued relationship with her partner. Such immigration schemes encourage women to remain in abusive or exploitative relationships. In the Netherlands, there is the option for a woman to receive an autonomous residency permit, but the requirements for that permit are increasingly restrictive—increasing the residency requirement from 3 to 5 years, requiring women to meet civic integration requirements[31] and incurring high fees. An autonomous residence permit can only be obtained [in a shorter time period?], if there is proven, visible, evidence of the violence in the relationship.[32] These evidentiary standards are a further hindrance to legal independence. Rather than restricting migration law to prevent dependent spouses to migrate, governments need to create options for women to be free of migration dependency. Similarly, workers that have migrated on domestic labor or entertainer visas are vulnerable to such abuses because their immigration status is tied to their employer. Leaving the underlying employment contracts in such situations can lead to demands to pay recruitment and travel, and cancelation of immigration status.[33]

Finally, women with irregular status in the host country should be able to seek help without fear of deportation. This requires residency status with work authorization, low evidentiary standards for proving that she has been trafficked, separating trafficking policing from immigration policing, and not conditioning residency status on participation in prosecution. The Netherlands “B8/3” procedure, referring to chapter B8/3 of the Aliens Law of 2000, enables migrant survivors of trafficking to report to the police without the threat of immediate deportation.[34] With an indication that a woman may be trafficked, the police must inform her of her right to a B8/3 reflection period. The victim then has three months of reflection time to decide whether she wants to file a report.[35] The low burden of proof for trafficking survivors to self-identify is a positive element of the B8/3 procedure, however, the right to a temporary residence status after the three-month reflection period is dependent on the on-going duration of criminal proceedings against traffickers, which conditions her long-term protection on participation in criminal proceedings.

8. Provide clear and practical requirements for implementing a rights-centered approach.

While many states approach trafficking as a criminal law issue, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women is a human rights instrument, and as such, the Committee must approach trafficking as a human rights issue, providing guidance on solutions that address the violation of human rights.  The General Recommendation is an opportunity for the Committee to outline the practical requirements of implementing a human rights approach. As a general foundation, a rights-centered approach to trafficking requires states to provide assistance and protection to survivors, and not to penalize them, even when they have violated migration or anti-prostitution laws.[36]  Likewise, states should use great caution that the provision of assistance and protection does not inadvertently infringe upon the human rights of survivors. We offer the following concrete suggestions:

Protection should not be conditioned on participation in prosecution. As seen in the Dutch B8/3 procedure, described above, migration status for survivors is often conditioned on cooperation with the criminal justice system. This focus on short-term needs rather than long-term support does not serve the human rights of survivors, but rather, it serves the prosecution of perpetrators. Survivors who choose not to go through the criminal justice process are denied support services to help them to recover.^[37]

Women who come forward should have long-term migration status options. State Parties should offer survivors residency permits that are long enough for survivors to rebuild their lives.[38]

Temporary visas should allow women to work. Temporary visas for survivors of trafficking commonly restrict work authorization. The right to work is protected in CEDAW Art. 11 and is essential for survivor recovery and reintegration. ^[39]

Survivors need access to justice, including access to free legal assistance. Survivors must have access to legal aid from the time of their first contact with police. Legal representation will help inform survivors of their rights and various legal procedures that they can initiate, such as immigration benefits and compensation claims. Lawyers also help to ensure that survivors are treated with respect and sensitivity, thus safeguarding against re-victimization.[40]

States must provide short-term shelter and long-term housing options. Shelter should be available to both citizens and foreign national survivors.[41] The provision of shelter must not unduly restrict the freedom of movement of the survivor, respecting the human rights principal of proportionality in any restrictions on her freedom of movement.[42]

Low-evidentiary standard to trigger protection of the non-punishment principle. The non-punishment principle is an essential piece of human rights centered services for survivors of trafficking.[43] Prosecution and detention of victims of trafficking leads to re-victimizing and re-traumatizing. Through proper implementation of the non-punishment principle, women and girls will not be prosecuted for crimes or offenses committed as a consequence of their trafficking situation. However, when a state fails to recognize that a trafficked person has been a victim of the crime of trafficking, the non-punishment principle cannot be applied.[44] A woman recently emerging from a trafficking situation will likely have difficulty presenting evidence in a linear or coherent manner due to the trauma she has endured.[45] As such, the evidentiary burden to prove that she is a victim of trafficking should be a low standard.

9. Insist that State Parties ground labor and migration policies on empirical evidence.

Sex-work, irregular migration, and trafficking are all policy areas that can give rise to emotional or moral policy justifications. The General Recommendation must caution against reactionary initiatives by insisting that policies are grounded in empirical evidence. Only by collecting data on the effects of such policies on trafficked women and girls can State Parties safeguard their human rights and adequately address any infringement thereto. [46] The General Recommendation should operationalize monitoring and evaluation, encouraging policy development based on data collected.

Conclusion

We ask that through its General Recommendation regarding Art.6, the Committee re-commit itself to upholding and protecting the human rights of women and girls. In sum, the General Recommendation can safeguard the human rights of trafficked women and girls by (1) insisting that migration and labor policies be rights-based, evidence-led and gender-sensitive; and (2) sending a clear message that measures to address trafficking should not negatively impact the human rights of women and girls, in particular, female migrants and sex workers.

We thank you for your review and look forward to continued engagement with the elaboration process.

[1] “Concept Note,” August 11, 2018, para. 34, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CEDAW/Pages/DiscussionOnTrafficking.aspx.

[2] Human Rights Committee, “2002 Recommended Principles and Guidelines on Human Rights and Human Trafficking,” E/ /68/Add.1 2002 (cited at Concept Note para. 8).

[3] “United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime,” A/RES/55/25 § (2000).

[4] Melissa Ditmore and Marjan Wijers, “The Negotiations on the UN Protocol on Trafficking in Persons,” Nemesis 4 (2003): 79–80.

[5] Ditmore and Wijers, 87.

[6] Ditmore and Wijers, 83.

[7] ILO, “Recommendation Concerning HIV and AIDS and the World of Work,” adopted 2010, para. official Report of the Committee on HIV/AIDS (recognizing sex work in both formal and informal economies).

[8] E.g., “Concept Note,” paras. 18, 26.

[9] UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), “Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery” (1956), para. 1.

[10] Marjan Wijers, “Purity, Victimhood and Agency: Fifteen Years of the UN Trafficking Protocol,” Anti-Trafficking Review, no. 4 (2015): 60.

[11] Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women, “Collateral Damage: The Impact of Anti-Trafficking Measures on Rights Around the World” (Bangkok, 2007), 17.

[12] Latrice Annette Drain, “An Organizational Systems View of Sex Trafficking,” in Handbook of Sex Trafficking: Feminist Transnational Perspectives, ed. Lenore Walker, Giselle Gaviria, and Kalyani Gopal (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018), 52, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73621-1_6.

[13] Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women, “Collateral Damage: The Impact of Anti-Trafficking Measures on Rights Around the World,” 12, 16.

[14] UN Secretary General, “Trafficking in Women and Girls (2018),” A/73/263 §, para. 24, accessed January 29, 2019, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/73/263.

[15] Lucy Platt et al., “Associations between Sex Work Laws and Sex Workers’ Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative Studie,” PLoS Med 15, no. 12 (December 11, 2018).

[16] Charlotta Holmström and May-Len Skilbrei, “The Swedish Sex Purchase Act: Where Does It Stand?,” Oslo Law Review 1, no. 02 (2017): 100, https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2017-02-02.

[17] Human Rights Committee, “2002 Recommended Principles and Guidelines on Human Rights and Human Trafficking” Principle 3.

[18] “The provision of appropriate assistance and services to victims of trafficking, including both short term as well as comprehensive, survivor-centered, long term services.”

[19] CEDAW, “General Recommendation No. 26 on Women Migrant Workers,” CEDAW/C/2009/WP.1/R § (2008), para. 5.

[20] GAATW, “Moving Beyond Supply and Demand Catch-Phrases: Assessing the Uses and Limitations of Demand-Based Approaches in Anti-Trafficking,” 2011.

[21] Jacqui. True, The Political Economy of Violence against Women, Oxford Studies in Gender and International Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 63.

[22] Bridget Anderson and Julia O’Connell Davidson, “Trafficking – a Demand Led Problem?” (Stockholm: Save the Children, 2002), 22.

[23] True, The Political Economy of Violence against Women, 54.

[24] Dutch CEDAW Network, “Joining Forces to Break the Circle of Violence Against Women: Dutch NGO Shadow Report on the Implementation of  the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combatting  Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention),” October 2018, 4.

[25] Carolina Villacampa and Núria Torres, “Human Trafficking for Criminal Exploitation: The Failure to Identify Victims,” European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 23, no. 3 (2017): 401, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-017-9343-4 (noting that only when a case was acknowledged as multiple exploitations was trafficking for criminal exploitation identified).

[26] Benoit C et al., “‘The Prostitution Problem’: Claims, Evidence, and Policy Outcomes.,” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1276-6.

[27] Anderson and O’Connell Davidson, “Trafficking – a Demand Led Problem?,” 11.

[28] Ine Vanwesenbeeck, “The Making of ‘The Trafficking Problem,’” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1367-4.

[29] “Concept Note,” para. 28.

[30] UN Secretary General, Trafficking in Women and Girls (2018), 24.

[31] Elles Besselsen and Betty de Hart, Verblijfsrechtelijke consequenties van de Wet inburgering: een onderzoek naar de ervaringen van migranten in Amsterdam (Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publishers (WLP), 2014).

[32] Dutch CEDAW Network, “Joining Forces to Break the Circle of Violence Against Women: Dutch NGO Shadow Report on the Implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combatting Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention),” para. 17.

[33] Anderson and O’Connell Davidson, “Trafficking – a Demand Led Problem?,” 11.

[34] “Wat Is de B8/3?,” CoMensha, accessed January 31, 2019, https://www.comensha.nl/pagina/wat-is-de-b8-3.

[35] This reflection period legislation is an implementation of EU Law, Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities.

[36] Marjolein van den Brink and Marjan Wijers, “‘Because to Me, a Woman Who Speaks in Public Is a Public Woman’  30 Years Women’s Convention and the Struggle to Eliminate Discrimination of Women in the Field of Trafficking and Prostitution,” in The Women’s Convention Turned 30, ed. Ingrid Westendorp (Maastricht Centre for Human Rights: Intersentia, 2012), 12.

[37] UN Secretary General, “Trafficking in Women and Girls (2002),” A/73/263 § (n.d.), para. 52.

[38] François Crépeau, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants,” April 3, 2014.

[39] UN Secretary General, Trafficking in Women and Girls (2002), para. 52.

[40] Prepared by Marjan Wijers, “Improving Access to Justice for Trafficked Persons” (Council of Europe, Netherlands Helsinki Committee, November 22, 2016), 7.

[41] Dutch CEDAW Network, “Joining Forces to Break the Circle of Violence Against Women: Dutch NGO Shadow Report on the Implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combatting  Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention),” para. 35.

[42] International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Art. 9, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171 (1966).

[43] Ryszard W. Piotrowicz and Liliana Sorrentino, “The Non- Punishment Provision with Regard to Victims of Trafficking: A Human Rights Approach,” in Routledge Handbook of Human Trafficking, ed. Ryszard W. Piotrowicz, Conny Rijken, and Baerbel Heide Uhl, 1 online resource (xxviii, 558 pages). vols., Routledge International Handbooks (Abingdon, Oxon ; Routledge, 2018), 177–84, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1554293.

[44] Villacampa and Torres, “Human Trafficking for Criminal Exploitation.”

[45] Piotrowicz and Sorrentino, “The Non- Punishment Provision with Regard to Victims of Trafficking: A Human Rights Approach.”

[46] UN Secretary General, Trafficking in Women and Girls (2018), 52.