Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Abolishing Slavery and its Contemporary Forms

Forms of Slavery
25
and other relevant officials’ training in the prevention of trafficking, prosecution of traffickers and
protection of victims; strengthen border controls; and adopt legislative and other appropriate mea-
sures such as sanctions to prevent commercial carriers transporting trafficked persons.
132
Follow-
ing repeated United Nations requests for information exchange among States, article 10 of the
Trafficking Protocol requires States’ law enforcement, immigration and other relevant authorities
to cooperate with each other by exchanging information. Concern that strengthened border con-
trols would conflict with the principle of non-refoulement by limiting the right of individuals to
seek asylum from persecution led to the implementation of a broad savings clause. Article 14
states that nothing in the Protocol “shall affect the rights, obligations and responsibilities of States
and individuals under international law, including international humanitarian and human rights
law”, with particular regard to the principle of non-refoulement as contained in the 1951 Conven-
tion on the Status of Refugees
133
and its 1967 Protocol.
134
81. The law enforcement and border control provisions fail to address how victims of trafficking
are to be identified. This failure proves to be a serious weakness when the relationship of the Traf-
ficking Protocol to the Migrant Smuggling Protocol, which also supplements the Convention
against Transnational Organized Crime, is taken into account.
135
The stated purpose of the
Migrant Smuggling Protocol is to prevent and combat migrant smuggling and to promote cooper-
ation among States to that end while protecting the rights of smuggled migrants.
136
The Trafficking
Protocol, however, affords greater protection to the rights of victims of trafficking than the Migrant
Smuggling Protocol allows to smuggled migrants. For example, States parties to the Migrant Smug-
gling Protocol are not required to consider the possibility of permitting victims to remain in their
territories temporarily or permanently, nor are they required to take account of migrants’ rights in
the repatriation process. Furthermore, smuggled migrants are not granted similar entitlements to
trafficking victims with respect to legal proceedings or remedies against smugglers, nor are they
entitled to any of the special protections that States may choose to afford trafficked persons in rela-
tion to their personal safety and physical and psychological well-being. Altogether, this difference
implies that States accept greater financial and administrative responsibilities when identifying
trafficked persons. Accordingly, in some cases national authorities may prefer to identify victims
of trafficking as irregular migrants who have been smuggled rather than trafficked. In addition, the
definition of migrant smuggling – “the procurement, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a
financial or other material benefit, of the illegal entry of a person”
137
– is sufficiently wide to apply
to all irregular immigrants whose transport has been facilitated by others.
138
“The distinction that
has been made between trafficked persons and smuggled migrants is a useful one. However, it is
important to note that such a distinction is less clear on the ground, where there is considerable
movement and overlapping between the two categories . . . Unfortunately there is little guidance
in either instrument regarding how the identification process is to be undertaken and by
whom.”
139
This difference also results in a potential incentive for States to ratify the Smuggling
Protocol and not the Trafficking Protocol. Additionally, neither Protocol recognizes the fact that it
is becoming increasingly common for a person to begin their journey as a smuggled migrant, only
to become trafficked when later forced or tricked into an exploitative situation.
140
Gallagher
believes that the failure of States to address these issues is evidence of their unwillingness to relin-
quish any measure of control over the migrant identification process.
132
Trafficking Protocol, supra note 28, art. 10(1) and (2), art. 11(1)(2)(3) and (4).
133
Convention on the Status of Refugees, United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 189, p. 137; entered into force on 22
April 1954.
134
Protocol on the Status of Refugees, United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 606, p. 267; entered into force on 4 Oc-
tober 1967.
135
Anne Gallagher, supra note 102.
136
Migrant Smuggling Protocol, supra note 74, art. 2. 
137
Migrant Smuggling Protocol, supra note 74, art. 3(a).
138
Anne Gallagher, supra note 102.
139
Smuggling and trafficking in persons and the protection of their human rights, Note by the Secretary General,
supra note 123, para. 7.
140
Ibid., para. 13.

---