1 / 21

E-NOTES European NGOs Observatory on Trafficking, Exploitation and Slavery

E-NOTES European NGOs Observatory on Trafficking, Exploitation and Slavery. Implementation of anti-trafficking policies and interventions in European Union Member States (2008 and 2009). Mike Dottridge Independent consultant. PRESENTATION INCLUDES. What our monitoring exercise involved

robert-page
Télécharger la présentation

E-NOTES European NGOs Observatory on Trafficking, Exploitation and Slavery

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. E-NOTES European NGOs Observatory on Trafficking, Exploitation and Slavery

  2. Implementation of anti-trafficking policies and interventions in European Union Member States (2008 and 2009) Mike Dottridge Independent consultant

  3. PRESENTATION INCLUDES • What our monitoring exercise involved • A brief word about the method we used • A summary of some of our results • Focusing on patterns across the EU’s 27 Member States

  4. A MONITORING EXERCISE IN 2010 TO MEASURE STATES’ RESPONSES • In implementing the minimum standards set out in: • The Council of Europe’s Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (2005) • Ratified by 19 EU States • Signed by 7 others • Only 1 State has not adhered (Czech Republic)

  5. INCOMPLETE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED BY EU STATES ABOUT THEIR ANTI-TRAFFICKING RESPONSES • E.g., that by 2006, 500 trafficking cases had been investigated in 23 Member States in the course of a year • Most EU Member States had introduced a reflection period • But only 5 reported granting one – to a total of 26 individuals!

  6. MONITORING METHOD • By NGOs and researchers they identified • One in each of 27 States • Using a 60-page research protocol • Trying to answer more than 200 questions • And writing a ‘profile’ of each of the States

  7. RESULTS • No League Table or ‘Tiers’ for EU States • Some general conclusions and weaknesses identified • E.g. on 5 key points for anti-trafficking responses

  8. 1. COORDINATION OF ANTI-TRAFFICKING RESPONSES AT NATIONAL LEVEL • A national coordination structure in 23 out of the 27 EU States • None reported in France, Germany, Greece or Malta

  9. 2. IDENTIFICATION • 11 out of 27 States have a single government agency/ structure responsible for formally identifying trafficked persons • 6 of those without this have no standardised procedure(Austria, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Italy, Malta)

  10. 3. A REFLECTION PERIOD OF AT LEAST 30 DAYS • Reflection period in 23 out of 27 States • In 2008, 11 States granted reflection to 207 people • In 2009, 18 States granted reflection to 1,150 people

  11. 4. PROCEDURES CONCERNING RETURNS • 6 countries have formal return agreements • In only 3 of 17 States providing information were RISK ASSESSMENTS reportedly routine prior to returns (Italy, Portugal and Romania)

  12. 5. REMEDIES, REDRESS AND COMPENSATION • In 2008 trafficked persons received payments as damages or compensation in 12 countries (information from 22) • In 2009, also 12 (out of 20) • 9 made payments both years (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and UK)

  13. PROSECUTIONS • We learned of 858 convictions in 22 countries for trafficking during 2008 • A total of 2,871 people were reportedly investigated in relation to trafficking offences in 17 countries during 2008 • We learned of 692 convictions in 21 countries during 2009

  14. TRAFFICKED PERSONS IDENTIFIED • 2008 + 2009: 3,800 ‘presumed trafficked persons’ in 15 States • c. 58% confirmed (c. 2,200) • In 2009, 3,800 reportedly the subject of referrals in 16 States

  15. TRAFFICKED WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION • In 2008 & 2009, nationals from EU States who were trafficked had the same entitlement to protection and assistance as ‘third country’ nationals in 18 EU States • In 14 EU countries (out of 25), EU citizens were identified and assisted in 2008 and 2009 on the same basis as trafficked persons from outside the EU

  16. ASSISTANCE • In 20 out of 23 countries emergency medical treatment was reported to be available in 2009 for presumed trafficked persons • in some countries assistance was still conditional on trafficked persons being willing to provide information to law enforcement officials

  17. PROTECTION FOR VICTIM WITNESSES • In-court protection was available to trafficked adults or children who were victim witnesses in about half EU • But there were reports from 5 countries that victim witnesses had their identity revealed during trials, despite promises of confidentiality

  18. Scorecard for availability of in-court protection measures in 2009: 8 (best) to 0 (worst)

  19. NATIONAL RAPPORTEURS • 9 countries had a National Rapporteur on trafficking (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, and Sweden) • 16 did not • The 9 are not all independent

  20. RECOMMENDATIONS • Further monitoring is necessary • Both by governments themselves and by civil society • Much more standardisation is needed on relevant terminology, statistics and ways of measuring (e.g., numbers of individuals prosecuted for trafficking) • More learning and transfer of good practice by EU States from one another

  21. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! mikedottridge@btopenworld.com Tel. +44 1763 242 902 Royston SG8 5BY, United Kingdom

More Related