








1










































2
CHAPTER 12
Improving International Counter-Trafficking
Cooperation: Transnational Referral Mechanisms
Mariyana Radeva, Elisa Trossero, Martijn Pluim (ICMPD)
Introduction
Human trafficking is a two-fold security risk: Often linked to transnational
organised crime, it constitutes a risk to states, particularly through money
laundering, corruption, and illegal migration. The complex nexus between
trafficking and these issues is outlined in other chapters of this book.1
Trafficking also undermines human security, with trafficked persons being both
psychologically and physically abused. The 2004 Report of the EU Experts
Group on Trafficking in Human Beings emphasises:2
In the context of a human rights-based approach, human security is of
central importance. Trafficking in human beings is related to human
security in a number of ways … Violations of individual security and
the lack of economic development belong to the root causes of human
trafficking. Security policy in its traditional perception articulates the
protection of national state borders by military and diplomatic
strategies … The Group wants to highlight a concept of security and
policies to go with it that address the need for personal security and
economic development that has an influence on individual prosperity,
thus concentrating on people and not only on states.3
1
See, for example, the chapter of John Picarelli on organised crime and that of Leslie Holmes on
corruption.
2
The Experts Group was set up in 2003 to advise the European Commission on initiatives to combat
trafficking.
3
EU Experts Group, Report of the Experts Group on Trafficking in Human Beings (Brussels: European
Commission, December 2004), 86.
459
To fight trafficking, various stakeholders must cooperate. Bringing all relevant
actors together can be challenging. An institutionalised mechanism for the
referral of victims that brings together a broad range of actors is much needed.
This is all the more true in case of a transnational referral mechanism (TRM)—
relevant to trafficking crimes committed in more than one country. The goal of
a TRM is to facilitate cross-border cooperation related to the referral of
victims, thus ensuring that trafficked persons are effectively assisted by the
relevant actors in different countries and that their respective needs and rights
are guaranteed. A TRM is thus a response to complex transnational security
risks, linking governmental and non-governmental actors across borders in a
joint effort to protect victims and prosecute traffickers. It must be noted that a
TRM aims to be a comprehensive tool, addressing all forms of trafficking. This
chapter outlines the structure and implementation of a TRM.
1. Structure of the Transnational Referral Mechanism
A TRM refers to mechanisms and the associated procedures designed for the
comprehensive assistance and transnational support of trafficked persons.4 The
TRM integrates the process of referral from initial identification through return
and assistance between countries of transit, destination and origin. This
involves cooperation between different government institutions and nongovernmental actors. The TRM encompasses five standard operating
procedures (SOPs) which reflect the main phases of the transnational referral
process:
SOP 1: Identification
SOP 2: Crisis Intervention/First Assistance
SOP 3: Assistance and social inclusion
SOP 4: Voluntary return, legal stay and/or resettlement
SOP 5: Criminal proceedings and compensation claims
4
ICMPD, Transnational Referral Mechanism for Victims of Trafficking (TRM): Guidelines—Draft
(Vienna: ICMPD, June 2008).
460
Source: ICMPD, Transnational Referral Mechanism for Victims of Trafficking.
These SOPs are included in one “manual”: the TRM Guidelines. Each SOP
includes several measures that answer four questions: WHAT is to be done;
WHEN is action to be taken; WHO should be involved; and HOW should the
action be executed. Accordingly, every action includes a step-by-step
implementation guide. The TRM is a flexible tool that builds upon existing
structures and procedures at the national, bilateral and multilateral level. Its
structure is not prescriptive: actors are not obliged to implement the procedures
sequentially. Instead, they can select those measures that would contribute most
to the effective handling of a particular case. In short, the TRM, in practice,
functions as an à-la-carte menu: the usage is left up to practitioners.
Yet, it should be understood that a TRM does not offer a comprehensive onesize-fits-all solution to the issue of trafficking. Moreover, the creation of such a
mechanism is not a onetime activity; rather, it has to be regarded as a
continuous process on which all involved actors continue to work in
coordination with their international counterparts.
461
In order for authorities to address trafficking as a risk to the state and to the
individual, a holistic and integrated approach is needed, as highlighted in the
Report of the Experts Group on Trafficking in Human Beings. The key
elements of this approach are “multidisciplinary cooperation and coordination
between all involved actors and stakeholders, including civil society and labour
organisations.”5 There is a shift away from emphasising the role of “power
ministries” (such as interior and defence) with more consideration being given
to the role of “soft ministries” (such as social protection, labour, health, or
family). Furthermore, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) also contribute
to the sustainability of the TRM. As the Experts Group report argues: “The role
of civil society actors, in particular independent NGOs, should be more
extensively recognised … also because of their critical role in maintaining and
strengthening democratic process and in monitoring and advocating
implementation of human rights commitments by states.”6
The efficacy of the TRM is a product of the commitment of the relevant actors
to use it to its full potential. The TRM is meant to be used across the entire
national range of anti-trafficking actors. It assumes involvement from police
officers, border guards, judges and prosecutors, as well as NGOs, embassy
officials, representatives from social and labour ministries, specialists dealing
with minors and national anti-trafficking coordinators.
As the national anti-trafficking bodies are structured differently in every
country where they exist, the exact composition of actors involved would
naturally vary from country to country. It is, however, important that as many
relevant actors apply and participate in the TRM in order to ensure a more
efficient response. The TRM guidelines also include the contact details of
relevant actors in participating countries, listed so as to correspond to the five
SOPs.
2. Emergence of the TRM
The TRM was conceived and first implemented on a large scale in ten
countries of South-Eastern Europe (SEE),7 following a June 2006 initiative
from USAID and the International Centre for Migration Policy Development
5
EU Experts Group, Report of the Experts Group, 18.
6
EU Experts Group, Report of the Experts Group, 18.
7
ICMPD, “The Programme to Support the Development of Transnational Referral Mechanisms (TRM)
for Trafficked Persons in South-Eastern Europe (June 2006–June 2009),” ICMPD,
www.icmpd.org/725.html?&no_cache=1&tx_icmpd_pi1[article]=472&tx_icmpd_pi1[page]=476
(accessed May 27, 2009).
462
(ICMPD). SEE is seen as a pilot region for the implementation of a TRM.8 It is
a region that has seen much hardship, value change, redrawing of borders and
economic disparity. Transnational cooperation is therefore not necessarily a
pre-existing condition in the region. In addition, several of the countries shared
comparable political systems in the past, and thus a similar institutional
heritage and similar institutional challenges. Additionally, two of the current
TRM countries, Bulgaria and Romania, are already European Union (EU)
member states, and most of the others are aiming at full membership.
Accordingly, their legislation and approaches to organised crime share some
characteristics with those of EU countries.
Since 2008, four more EU Member States have begun to participate in the
development of a TRM process via the so-called TRM EU project.9 Thus, by
mid-2009, fourteen countries participated in the TRM process. This number is
not significant against the backdrop of the number of countries attempting to
fight the phenomenon of trafficking in human beings. However, it would not be
feasible to implement such a mechanism for the first time across a larger
number of countries, given the institutional, organisational and legislative
differences between any two countries in this regard.
The TRM in SEE particularly addresses the needs of adult victims of
trafficking. In partnership with UNICEF, specific measures for the referral of
child victims were included later in the process. Despite the increased
international awareness of trafficking in minors, this area remains to be
expanded into a more comprehensive version of the TRM.
The fight against trafficking has been a recurring priority for SEE states for a
number of years. An initiative started by the Stability Pact for South Eastern
Europe, the Task Force on Trafficking in Human Beings (SPTF), managed to
elevate the issue on the policy ladder. Most countries involved have made
remarkable progress in terms of developing legislation, capacity building and
training. Yet, when the TRM was conceived in 2006, the referral of victims of
trafficking across borders was dealt with mainly on an ad-hoc basis and relied
upon personal contacts between officials. Efficient and comprehensive SOPs
were largely absent, creating serious gaps in protection and assistance and also
8
Initiatives similar to the TRM may exist outside Europe. The team working on the TRM has not, at this
stage, researched any parallels between the TRM and similar programmes.
9
For more information on the TRM-EU project, see ICMPD, “Development of a Transnational Referral
Mechanism for Victims of Trafficking Between Countries of Origin and Destination (TRM – EU),”
ICMPD,
www.icmpd.org/861.html?&no_cache=1&tx_icmpd_pi1[article]=1356&tx_icmpd_pi1[page]=1358
(accessed May 27, 2009).
463
undermined the sustainability of the system. This underscored the pertinence of
a system which allows individuals in one country to be referred for assistance
and protection to another, i.e., a Transnational Referral Mechanism. These gaps
became particularly evident when partner institutions from two or more
countries came together to discuss how to resolve a particular case. Study
visits, taking place in the framework of the TRM, brought officials together.
Below is an excerpt from the study visit report of the Macedonian delegation to
France.
Box 1
A Macedonian minor victim was promised that she would marry a man in France. However,
instead she was trafficked through and exploited in Serbia and Italy. Finally she was taken to
France where she was handed over to the family of the man she was supposed to marry. She was
trafficked for sexual and labour exploitation and also forced to perform criminal acts. Her
exploitation in France lasted for about nine months. The victim managed to call her parents in
Macedonia, who informed the Macedonian police and gave them the telephone number from
which their daughter had called. The Macedonian authorities made contact with the French
authorities through INTERPOL. The French authorities found the location where the victim was
being held (via the telephone number), then moved her to a shelter for vulnerable children.
Finally, she went back to Macedonia by plane.
However, the French police had not identified the minor as a victim of human trafficking, and
therefore not provided her with sufficient assistance. The shelter was not appropriately secured
and its location was public information. Hence, the traffickers were waiting for her while she was
in the shelter. When she returned to Macedonia, the Macedonian police took her statement and
identified her as a victim of trafficking. The Macedonian police, again with the assistance of
INTERPOL, made contact with the French authorities and began an investigation of the
traffickers in Macedonia. The French authorities were reluctant to become involved in the case
since she had not been identified in France as a victim of trafficking. During the study visit it was
noted that the French authorities might reopen the case in order to investigate the perpetrators.
The Macedonian officials agreed to provide their French counterparts with the relevant
information.10
By mid-June 2009, representatives of the countries involved in the TRM agreed
that they had begun to “speak a common language” of transnational
cooperation in anti-trafficking.11 The SOPs had been adhered to, and the list of
contacts from the TRM had been turned into a tool, used in the daily work of
10
Internal Study Visit report
11
ICMPD, “Conclusions of the Final Regional TRM Seminar” (seminar conclusions, Ohrid, 2–3 June
2009).
464
practitioners. According to the practitioners involved, cooperation has become
more institutionalised, less problematic and more practical.
3. From National Referral Mechanisms (NRMs) to the TRM
The TRM does not replace any existing national anti-trafficking structures; it is
meant to build upon NRMs, where they exist, and take them a step further to a
transnational level. An NRM is a cooperative framework established at the
national level (for example, involving some statutory organisations and civil
society) that delineates referral strategies to support and protect victims of
trafficking.12 The TRM and the NRM involve the same actors and are based on
the same human rights principles.
Accordingly, the TRM should be closely coordinated with a country’s NRM.
Indeed, one of the main preconditions for successful transnational cooperation
is an established national response. In this sense, the existence of NRM
structures in most of the SEE countries serves as a stepping stone for
transnational efforts. This interconnectedness may create challenges: while
most SEE countries tend to have NRMs, this is not the case for Western
Europe. Yet, an NRM and a TRM for one country could also be developed in
parallel, as has been the case for some TRM SEE countries (e.g. Bulgaria,
Kosovo,13 and Romania).
A TRM adds an entirely new level of complexity to victim referral, when
compared to the NRM. On the national level, the actors involved in the NRM
are based in the same country, speak the same language, are bound by the same
overarching interest to protect their own citizens and, in a very general sense,
are subjected to one authority (the government of that country). On the
transnational level, different interests, priorities, languages, criminal codes and
criminal procedures can hinder cooperation. An additional difficulty is the
language of communication—often officials from various countries relevant to
one case of transnational trafficking are not able to speak the same language.
Furthermore, some countries have an obligation to communicate through their
Ministries of Foreign Affairs in all matters that involve international partners.
International institutions can promote international cooperation. The role of
international organisations in the framework of the TRM is of a technical,
12
OSCE/ODIHR, National Referral Mechanisms: Joining Efforts to Protect the Rights of Trafficked
Persons. A Practical Handbook (Warsaw: OSCE/ODIHR 2004), 15.
13
Under UNSCR 1244
465
facilitating nature—providing transnational contacts if these are required, as
well as contributing expertise and resources. The rest is done by national actors
at an international level, to ensure national ownership, one of the underlying
principles of the TRM.
A TRM caters to the specific needs of each country that applies it. In SEE, the
TRM already reflects the national legislation, anti-trafficking structures and
national priorities.14 This national adaptation inevitably creates discrepancies
between the different versions of the TRM. In practice, this means that while
the SOPs remain the same, the answers to the questions Who, When, What and
How may differ. For example, while the Ministry of Interior of Croatia is the
sole body that can carry out official identification, in Serbia the identification
interview is led by the Coordination and Protection Agency for Victims of
Trafficking. Yet these discrepancies do not override the principle of
international cooperation.
National responses to trafficking may vary since states use different definitions
and tools, task institutions with different mandates, and face different patterns
of trafficking. Within the context of the European Union, entities such as the
EC Group of Experts on Trafficking in Human Beings, and documents such as
the EU Action Plan15 and various Council Directives, have reduced these
differences to some extent. It is also noteworthy that it was among the priorities
of the Czech Presidency of the European Union (1 January–30 June 2009) to
draft a new Council Framework decision on combating trafficking in human
beings. On a practical level, meetings between SEE countries and their EU
counterparts facilitate the recognition of differences and stimulate efforts for
overcoming them (although, in 2009, these meetings did not include all twentyseven EU member states). The TRM study visits are an important step in this
regard. The EU and its member states, however, must still match rhetoric and
action. As the EU Commission reported in fall 2008:
All stakeholders involved in the implementation of the EU Action Plan
have taken action and achieved some results. However, some measures
have not yet been implemented. Moreover, it is still difficult to assess
the real impact of actions that have been implemented on the actual
development of anti-trafficking policy. Although the Commission and
14
The ten SEE countries involved in the TRM SEE have, between June and November 2007, adapted the
general TRM guidelines to their national anti-trafficking legislation. Thus, each country has a national
version, yet with the same structure and the same general principles.
15
EU Council, EU Plan on Best Practices, Standards and Procedures for Combating and Preventing
Trafficking in Human Beings (OJ 2005/C 311/1 (Brussels: EU Council, December 12, 2005)
466
the Council have been particularly active in the field of victim
assistance and protection, the factual situation shows substantial
weaknesses.16
By creating a transnational network composed of institutions that also
participate in the NRMs, the TRM contributes to a more comprehensive
implementation of counter-trafficking strategies.
4. The TRM in Practice
Since the late 1990s, numerous EU documents have listed organised crime as
one of the key threats to the security of EU member states, and emphasised the
need to adopt a comprehensive approach against organised crime and other
non-traditional security problems. The EU is ideally equipped to address
problems through social, developmental and economic measures. However, it
has proven difficult to address both states’ perceived security needs and the
human security of citizens and migrants, especially where transnational
cooperation is needed. Numerous counter-trafficking provisions exist, but they
need to be translated into practice. The TRM addresses this gap—it extends the
practical how-when-who-what answers also to the international realm.
One important European instrument is the Council of Europe (CoE)
Convention. It was adopted on May 16, 2005, and entered into force on
February 1, 2008. By late 2008, the convention was signed by forty states and
ratified by nineteen of them.17 Chapter VI—International cooperation and
cooperation with civil society—relates directly to the TRM. Below are a few
(non-exhaustive) examples of the relationship between general provisions of
the Convention and their translation into action in the TRM guidelines.
16
Commission of the European Communities, Commission Working Document: Evaluation and
Monitoring of the Implementation of the EU Plan on Best Practices, Standards and Procedures for
Combating and Preventing Trafficking in Human Beings, COM 2008 657 Final (Brussels: EU
Commission, October 17, 2008).
17
Council of Europe, “Status of Signature and Ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on
Action against Trafficking in Human Beings,” www.coe.int/t/DG2/TRAFFICKING/campaign/Flagssos_en.asp (accessed December 8, 2008).
467
Council of Europe Convention
TRM Guidelines
Article 10—Identification of victims
SOP Identification. Measure 1: Initial Referral
Each Party shall provide its competent
authorities with persons who are trained and
qualified in preventing and combating
trafficking in human beings, in identifying and
helping victims, including children, and shall
ensure that the different authorities collaborate
with each other as well as with relevant
support organisations, so that victims can be
identified in a procedure duly taking into
account the special situation of women and
child victims.
WHAT: The referral of a person assumed to be
a victim of trafficking to the institution that
acts as a central point of information, referral
and initial support for presumed victims and
that should nominate the case manager.
WHEN: After the person is identified as a
presumed victim of trafficking.
WHO: The body that is the first point of
notification of suspected cases of trafficking.
Depending on the country, this could be the
national coordinating institution, police or
service providers.
HOW: Suspicions of trafficking should be
reported to the first point of notification, which
should be known to all institutions that might
get in contact with trafficked persons.
Article 33—Measures relating to endangered
or missing persons
1. When a Party, on the basis of the
information at its disposal has reasonable
grounds to believe that the life, the freedom or
the physical integrity of a person referred to in
Article 28, paragraph 1, is in immediate
danger on the territory of another Party, the
Party that has the information shall, in such a
case of emergency, transmit it without delay to
the latter so as to take the appropriate
protection measures.
2. The Parties to this Convention may consider
reinforcing their co-operation in the search for
missing people, especially missing children, if
the information available leads them to believe
that she/he is a victim of trafficking. To this
end, the Parties may conclude bilateral or
multilateral treaties with each other.
Measure 4: Family Tracing
WHAT: If the victim expresses the wish to
return home and stay with her/his family, the
family may have to be traced (this procedure
does not apply when victims seek asylum).
WHEN: Simultaneously with the security
assessments.
WHO: The case manager from the country of
origin or a focal point from the institution
responsible for repatriation, in close
cooperation with NGOs if the victim is not
returned by an NGO.
HOW: Via NGO/IO networks or national
authorities.
In addition, the TRM offers a new approach to the existing legal framework
governing relations between victims, perpetrators, and the location of a crime.
Individual trafficking operations are often conducted in multiple countries,
involve nationals of yet other countries, and are subject to the jurisdiction of a
468
third set of countries. Functioning systems for exchange of information across
borders, for mutual legal assistance, and for expedient and secure transportation
are preconditions, but also accompanying elements of a functional TRM.
International cooperation is addressed throughout the TRM guidelines:18
countries of origin, destination and transit might have to contact each other to
establish or confirm the identity of the victim, or gather further evidence, as the
example below illustrates.
Box 2
A Macedonian victim of trafficking, identified in Croatia, was returned to Skopje. The
Macedonian and Croatian authorities discussed the status of the trafficked person, the way the
person had been exploited, and the identity of the trafficker. With the help of the TRM
Guidelines, the authorities were able to contact their most relevant counterpart in the process.
The most challenging question pertained to the physical return of the trafficked person.
Discrepancies in the standards for safe return made the process cumbersome, thus pointing to the
need for unified procedures. The relevant actors on both sides admitted that following the TRM
guidelines would have facilitated the process.
The TRM is being implemented at a time when the EU is attempting to lay the
foundations for a common migration and asylum policy. The difference
between the TRM and a common policy is that the TRM does not require the
harmonisation of legal systems and institutional structures. A flexible tool for
the coordination of anti-trafficking efforts by practitioners, it can accommodate
the particularities of each country in which it is implemented. This flexibility
constitutes the TRM’s greatest advantage—the mechanism provides specific
answers, but is broad enough to accommodate differing legal systems and
national anti-trafficking structures.
Part of the difficulty in implementing a TRM is that some national officials are
reluctant to put into practice non-binding guidelines, so long as the officials’
respective governments have not officially endorsed the guidelines. The
adoption of the TRM as a part of national anti-trafficking strategies thus
commits national actors to implementing the TRM. In this respect, Macedonia
and Bosnia-Herzegovina provide examples of good practices. In Macedonia,
the TRM guidelines have been adopted by the Council of Ministers.19 In
18
ICMPD, Transnational Referral Mechanism, 31.
19
Government of the Republic of Macedonia, National Commission for Combating Trafficking in Human
Beings and Illegal Migration, Standard Operating Procedures For Treatment Of Victims Of Trafficking
In Human Beings (Skopje: Government of Macedonia, 2008).
469
Bosnia-Herzegovina and also in Kosovo,20 the TRM has been incorporated into
the National Anti-Trafficking Action Plan for 2008–2009.
The TRM is an essential part of a national anti-trafficking strategy. It
complements, and may even substitute existing manuals, regulations,
guidelines and procedures, in order to streamline the referral process. More
generally, the TRM is part of multi-level counter-trafficking security
governance.21 Such a system forges—at times unlikely—alliances between
various actors by creating an institutional framework linking various actors and
institutions. The TRM seeks to create a stable trans-border network that covers
all aspects of the trafficking process, from identifying and assisting victims to
prosecuting criminals. Counter-trafficking policies must be multifaceted,
integrating law enforcement and criminal justice responses with migration,
labour, human rights, and social policies. By bringing together the various
institutions specialising in different elements of counter-trafficking, the TRM
facilitates communication across national and institutional boundaries.
5. TRM and Trust
Fighting trafficking raises the issue of accountability. Both the increased
degree of complexity at the transnational level and the involvement of multiple
actors decrease accountability. National institutions such as parliaments
provide accountability at the national level but do not exist or do not have the
same robust mandates at the international level. This is why promoting trust is
crucial. Confidence-building measures during the Cold War provide valuable
lessons. While such measures pertained to military security, their underlying
premise – that cooperation depends on partners’ trusting one another – can be
applied to other spheres as well.22
The TRM relies on trust: After all, participating individuals and institutions
entrust foreign counterparts with the well-being, or even the life, of a victim of
trafficking. At the same time, the TRM promotes trust. Serving as a
confidence-building measure among anti-trafficking actors, the mechanism
20
Under UNSCR 1244.
21
On this concept and an application to counter-trafficking, see Cornelius Friesendorf, “Pathologies of
Security Governance: Efforts Against Human Trafficking in Europe,” Security Dialogue 38, no.3
(2007): 379–402.
22
For a discussion of confidence-building measures and an application to the non-military sphere, see
Heiner Hänggi, “Good Governance Of The Security Sector: Its Relevance For Confidence-Building”
(Paper presented at the Seminar on “Practical Confidence-Building Measures: Does Good Governance
of the Security Sector Matter?”, New York, October 16, 2002).
470
facilitates communication: it provides a contact list of the most relevant actors
and defines communication lines. The contact list mirrors the structure of the
TRM guidelines and enumerates the institutions, departments and in many
cases the individuals responsible for each particular SOP in the TRM
countries.23 This list, when updated regularly and distributed to all relevant
anti-trafficking actors, has the potential to counteract staff turnover and thereby
make the referral process more efficient.
Box 3
In order to prepare national actors to use the TRM guidelines, training was organised between
February and May of 2008. Overall, 750 practitioners took part in thirty training events in
Southeastern Europe. The events focused on the practical implementation of TRM guidelines,
with participants working on real or simulated cases. Members of the National Multidisciplinary
Implementation Team from each country (representing ministries of interior, ministries of social
welfare, NGOs, prosecutors’ offices and other relevant institutions) trained their own colleagues.
This form of “cascade training” ensured national ownership of the guidelines, as well as
providing for continuity and sustained commitment.
The TRM encourages multidisciplinary actors on a multilateral and bilateral
level to meet in person. Ideally, such meetings will become institutionalised
and more frequent over time. Trust is especially important with regard to the
exchange of information about the victim and the trafficking case. Such
exchanges should be in accordance with the data protection laws of
participating countries, with due respect for the well-being of the victim. The
TRM SOPs pay particular attention to the victim’s right to privacy and
confidentiality. They are in full accordance with the ethical considerations in
Guideline 6.6 of the UN’s Recommended Principles and Guidelines on Human
Rights and Trafficking, which calls on states to:
ensure that trafficked persons are effectively protected from harm,
threats or intimidation by traffickers and associated persons. To this
end, there should be no public disclosure of the identity of trafficking
victims and their privacy should be respected and protected to the
extent possible, while taking into account the right of any accused
person to a fair trial. Trafficked persons should be given full warning,
in advance, of the difficulties inherent in protecting identities and
23
ICMPD, Transnational Referral Mechanism.
471
should not be given false or unrealistic expectations regarding the
capacities of law enforcement agencies in this regard.24
The guiding piece of legislation in this field is the Directive 95/46/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of October 24, 1995, which makes
explicit the need for the consent of victims at every step of the referral process.
With regard to evidence-gathering with the support of victims, the TRM thus
prescribes that neither countries of origin nor their consular services shall be
contacted in order to collect evidence if there is no consent on the part of the
victim and if the security of the victim could be jeopardised prior, during or
after the trial.25 The box below illustrates the need for trust among the actors
involved in a transnational referral.26
Box 4
To ensure that the victim will be received and assisted by a service provider upon arrival,
referring and receiving service providers have to constantly and promptly exchange information
to coordinate the return process. The following notifications are recommended:27
o
Notification of request for assistance by the referring organisation
o
Confirmation of request for assistance by the receiving organisation
o
Reintegration assistance request by the referring organisation
o
Reintegration assistance confirmation by the receiving organisation.
24
R. Surtees, Handbook on Anti-Trafficking Data Collection in South-Eastern Europe:
Developing Regional Criteria (Vienna: International Centre for Migration Policy
Development, 2007), 27. Further, guideline 8.9 of the UN Recommended Principles and
Guidelines on Human Rights and Trafficking calls on states to protect, as appropriate, the
privacy and identity of child victims and to take measures to avoid the dissemination of
information that could lead to their identification.
25
ICMPD, Transnational Referral Mechanism.
26
ICMPD, Transnational Referral Mechanism.
27
Adapted from IOM, Direct Assistance for Victims of Trafficking (Geneva: IOM, 2007).
472
The information provided by the referring organisation to the receiving organisation should
include:
o
Name of the victim
o
Date of birth and place of residence in the country of origin (if returning to
country of origin)
o
Any suspected or actual medical condition or vulnerability of the victim
o
Security and risk assessment
o
Short outline of assistance needs
o
Estimated date and time of departure, if applicable
o
Any other relevant information.
Based on this information, as well as on direct consultation with the referring organisation, it is
up to the receiving organisation to determine whether or not the referred person is eligible for
assistance and if assistance can be provided.
6. From a Programme to a Concept
The elements outlined in this chapter show the evolution of the TRM from a
pilot programme into a concept that can be exported and further developed in
other regions. Effective transnational cooperation in the referral of trafficked
persons requires effort, vision and action. The TRM programme conceptualizes
the manner in which this could be achieved efficiently and encourages national
actors to reach out to one another.
Recommendations
Monitor and Evaluate the Implementation of the TRM
At the time of the publication of this book it remained to be seen what exactly
the pilot TRM programme can and cannot achieve. Even though significant
progress had been made, as of June 2009 not enough time has passed for the
involved actors to conduct an objective evaluation of the usage of the TRM
Guidelines in the resolution of actual trafficking cases. Several drafts of the
TRM Guidelines were produced between June 2006 and March 2009. The
TRM now requires monitoring and evaluation. Different models of evaluation
exist—from independent institutions, such as national rapporteurs, to selfevaluation of each implementing body. High expectations are invested in the
Group of Experts on action against trafficking in human beings (GRETA), the
body responsible for monitoring implementation of the Council of Europe
Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. An evaluation of
473
the TRM needs to show to what extent the SOPs have been followed and
implemented in practice, and should also facilitate the updating and upgrading
of the TRM. The most appropriate way to find out how effective the TRM is
would be for national institutions responsible for coordinating the antitrafficking responses to evaluate their own work against the backdrop of the
TRM.
Improve NRMs
The TRM is only one additional building block in larger counter-trafficking
efforts. It is intended to rest upon a solid national base. Although it can be
developed in parallel, as in some SEE countries, in the long run a TRM cannot
function without an effective NRM. Even in those countries that have national
anti-trafficking coordinators, often the will and/or political clout to implement
both the NRM and TRM are lacking. Without an institutional recognition of the
problem of human trafficking and at least initial attempts for a structured
national response, it is difficult to implement an effective mechanism for
transnational referral. What is needed are national coordinating institutions, a
functioning NRM, trained law enforcement and judicial personnel, active
NGOs, and governments that recognise these NGOs as cooperation partners.
Regularly Train National Counter-trafficking Actors on the Implementation of
the SOPs
By mid-2009, ten countries were using the TRM guidelines, while the
additional four EU countries involved in the TRM-EU project were beginning
to adapt the TRM guidelines to their specific needs. Already at this stage it had
become clear that counter-trafficking actors require training to familiarise
themselves with the TRM. National-level training helps to crystallize the
actors’ respective roles in the context of the TRM SOPs, thus providing a more
solid basis for transnational cooperation. Using the contact list to work on case
studies and practicing the skills needed for international cooperation essentially
complement the day-to-day work of counter-trafficking actors.
Counter-trafficking Actors from Different Countries Should Regularly Meet
Cooperation hinges on trust. In Southeastern Europe, the region for which the
TRM was developed as a pilot programme, international cooperation in general
has partly been imposed from above on state authorities throughout the years.
But trust was not a given, not least due to the region’s recent past—and trust
has to come from within a country. The experience in the region underlines that
474
representatives of the main anti-trafficking actors (such as ministries of
interior, prosecutors offices, service providing NGOs) should hold regular
meetings within the framework of the TRM. At such meetings, trafficking
cases may be discussed, with due respect to data protection. This would allow
actors to learn from one another and to exchange information.
Assess Possibilities for Geographically Expanding the TRM
By mid-2009, the TRM existed as a pilot programme in Southeastern Europe.
A sign that the TRM works is that other countries have opted to join the
programme. To the extent that the TRM promotes international cooperation in
the process of referral of trafficked persons, it should be exported to other
regions.28 Implementation of the TRM would be facilitated by countries’
sharing common political and legislative features. Any assessment should
evaluate existing NRMs, modes of international cooperation, and the
willingness and capacity of relevant actors to participate in an institutionalised
mechanism for referring victims across borders. The region whose members
share the greatest legislative similarity is the EU. Southeastern European states
participating in the pilot TRM project have now conducted study visits to EU
countries and communicated their positive impression of the TRM. To increase
the number of participating countries, a “train-the-trainer” approach may be
applied, in that countries more experienced with the TRM help others in
implementing analogous initiatives. Recalling the EU commitment to fight
organised crime and to protect victims, one would expect all EU member states
to establish a TRM.
Take Into Account Individual Circumstances Within an Institutionalised
Framework
Every case of trafficking needs to be looked at individually, with particular
attention to the needs and rights of each victim. Notwithstanding this needstailored approach, an institutionalised framework of SOPs should be developed
in order to ensure efficient referral. The ultimate goal of a TRM is to assist and
support people who have been exposed to cross-border human trafficking in a
coordinated and effective manner.
28
An assessment was conducted in Ukraine in September–October 2008.
475