winona rosa

Thursday, September 22, 2011

The Hague court case's human trafficking

Developing Better Indicators of Human Trafficking
Copyright © 2003 by the Brown Journal of World Affairs
FRANK LACZKO is currently Head of the Research and Publications Division at the International Organization
for Migration (IOM), Geneva. Former Head of Research at the IOM Technical Cooperation Centre
for Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Vienna, and of IOM Migration Information Programme
for Central and Eastern Europe, in Budapest. MARCO A. GRAMEGNA is currently Head of the Counter-
Trafficking Service at the IOM, Geneva. He was the Director of IOM’s Migration Information Programme.
Former university teacher in Chile and in Canada.
Developing Better Indicators of
Human Trafficking
AS RECENTLY AS TEN YEARS AGO, the term “human trafficking” was rarely referred to in
debates about migration policy. Today, however, it is one of the major concerns of both
governments and organizations active in the migration field and has become a priority
for those working in many other policy areas such as human rights, health, gender, law
enforcement, and social services.
The organization of the largest ever EU conference on “Preventing and Combating
Trafficking in Human Beings,” held in Brussels from 18-20 September 2002, is an
example of the growing political priority being accorded to combating human trafficking.
The conference, organized by International Organization for Migration (IOM) on
behalf of the EU, brought together over 1,000 representatives of European institutions,
EU Member States, candidate countries, and relevant third world countries,
drawn from governments, international organizations, and NGOs. The conference
produced “The Brussels Declaration,” which outlines a set of policy recommendations
for the EU in the area of human trafficking.
In the United States also, trafficking has been high on the political agenda. In
October 2001, the State Department created the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking
in Persons, and in June 2002, it published a second report assessing the efforts
made by 89 countries to combat trafficking in persons. This report is the most comprehensive
anti-trafficking review to be issued by any single government.
Although combating human trafficking has become a growing political priority
for many governments around the world, available information about the magnitude
International Organization for Migration, Geneva
of the problem remains very limited. One of the biggest gaps in our understanding of
trafficking is in the area of statistics and data collection. Despite the growing literature
on human trafficking, much of the information on the actual number of persons trafficked
is unclear and relatively few studies are based on extensive research.
This article examines why producing reliable data on trafficking has proven so
difficult and suggests various measures that could be taken to improve such data. In
particular, this article argues that better use could be made of data emerging from the
growing number of counter-trafficking programs. For example, many of the agencies
that currently provide assistance to victims of trafficking around the world collect a
great deal of information about trafficking, but relatively few of these agencies analyze
the information they collect in a systematic fashion. An example of a way in which to
develop better indicators of trafficking is a project begun by IOM in the Balkans in May
2001 to create a database on trafficking. This database, which is further discussed below, is
based on detailed information collected from victims of trafficking assisted by IOM.
One reason it has been difficult to measure trafficking is because, until fairly recently,
there has been little agreement on how to precisely define human trafficking. Until the
early 1990s, trafficking was mainly viewed as a form of human smuggling and a type of
illegal migration. Today, a more detailed, internationally agreed-upon definition of
trafficking is available, a result of the signing in December 2000 of the UN Protocol to
Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons.
The UN defines trafficking and smuggling as follows:
“Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring,
or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of
coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position
of vulnerability, or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the
consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.
Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of
others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery or
practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs;
The consent of the victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set
forth in paragraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set
forth in subparagraph (a) have been used.
Developing Better Indicators of Human Trafficking
“Smuggling of migrants” shall mean the procurement, in order to obtain, directly or
indirectly, a financial or other material benefit, of the illegal entry of a person into a
State Party of which the person is not a national or a permanent resident. 1
Despite this more precise definition, a number of commentators have pointed out the
continuing difficulty of measuring trafficking, given the range of actions and outcomes
covered by the term. As O’Connell, Davidson, and Donelan explain:
Trafficking in persons is used as an umbrella term to cover a range of actions and
outcomes. Viewed as a process, trafficking can be said to entail several phases—
recruitment, transportation (which could be across several countries), and control
in the place of destination. Different groups, agents or individuals may be involved
in different phases of the process, and can organize recruitment, transportation and
control in different ways. There is thus immense diversity between and within trafficking
systems. 2
All these factors make it challenging to collect data on trafficking. The Palermo Protocol
demonstrated the need for a clearer and universally accepted definition of trafficking,
but a great deal remains to be done in order to improve the accuracy of trafficking data.
Given the fairly recent acceptance of the new international definition of trafficking, it
is perhaps not surprising that, so far, few governments have begun to systematically
collect data on trafficking. It is still common in many countries to mingle data relating
to trafficking, smuggling, and irregular migration. Furthermore, data on the number
of persons being trafficked are often only estimates and usually concern only the trafficking
of women and children for sexual exploitation, rather than other forms of exploitation.
At the global level, the most widely quoted figure reflects the number of women
and children believed to be trafficked world-wide each year across international borders.
In 1997, U.S. authorities estimated that between 700,000 to two million women
and children were trafficked each year. Such estimates, given without explanation of
their underlying assumptions, are widely considered to be conservative, as they do not
include trafficking within countries or the trafficking of men.
At the regional level, the European Commission (EC) reported in March 2001
that an “estimated 120,000 women and children are being trafficked into Western
Europe each year.” As with American estimates, it is unclear how these figures were
arrived at. In a recent report on trafficking in EU Member States, Europol, the EU’s
law enforcement agency, commented that:
The overall number of victims trafficked in the EU is still unknown and only estimates
are available. What is clear is the fact that the number of victims is much
higher than the official statistics from investigated cases in Member States.3
At the national level, an IOM study conducted in 1998 in 25 European countries on
behalf of the EC found that only 12 of the 25 countries surveyed could produce data
on cases of trafficking in women and only seven countries on cases of trafficking in
children.4 Eleven countries were able to supply data on the number of convictions for
offenses related to trafficking in women; the combined total of such convictions in
1996, however, stood at less than 100. Recent IOM studies in other parts of the world,
such as South-East Asia, South Korea, and Russia, have produced similar results.
In Central America and the Caribbean a recent major study concluded that:
Currently, no statistics are available to accurately quantify the magnitude of trafficking
in the region or within particular countries.5
The lack of reliable figures, in addition to the fact that many commentators on trafficking
repeat estimates derived from interviews with officials, means that many of the
referenced statistics are rounded numbers that give little explanation of how estimates
were made.
Only a few countries are able to provide data on trends in trafficking over several
years, making it difficult to accurately establish the extent to which trafficking may be
increasing. Figures from Germany and the Netherlands (two countries that possess
data on human trafficking) suggest that there has been a substantial increase in the
number of victims of trafficking (mainly for sexual exploitation) during the last decade.
The German Federal Criminal Office (Bundeskriminalamt) reports that in 2001
there were 987 victims of trafficking identified in police investigations of suspected
cases of trafficking, a figure nearly 25 percent higher than the 1999 figure, which
reported 801 victims (see Table 1 for details of trends since 1994). Most victims recorded
in these figures, however, are women; this is largely due to the German legal
definition of trafficking, which is limited to the purpose of prostitution. Although
German data do include information on the means of transport used, the way in
which the victim was recruited, the current legal status and country of residence of
victims, and the nationality of traffickers, there is virtually no information about the
trafficking of men or trafficking for other purposes such as forced labor.
In the Netherlands, a recent report by the Dutch National Rapporteur on trafficking
(Bureau NRM, 2002) cites figures based on the number victims of trafficking
registered with the Dutch Foundation Against the Trafficking of Women (STV). This
Developing Better Indicators of Human Trafficking
report shows that the number of persons assisted by STV rose from 70 in 1992 to 341
in 2000 (see Table 3).6 Again, as with the case of Germany, the data refer primarily to
cases of trafficking in women for purposes of prostitution and do not include trafficking
in other sectors of work such as agriculture, sweat shops, and domestic work.
It is unclear to what extent the reported increases are due to a genuine rise in cases
of trafficking or more due to better police enforcement efforts and improved assistance
from NGOs. Certainly, in the case of Germany, it has been shown that the number of
victims identified each year varies according to the priority given by police to combating
trafficking.7 It should, however, also be recalled that the official figures are likely to
indicate perhaps only the “tip of the iceberg.” STV, for example, reports that each
victim of trafficking usually knows of at least one other person in a similar situation
who has not received help from the authorities.
Although the full scale of trafficking is uncertain, the available data clearly indicate
which are the most important source countries and regions for victims of trafficking.
It is striking that, in the case of Germany, nearly 80 percent of trafficking victims
in 2001 were from countries in Central and Eastern Europe, especially Belarus, Lithuania,
Ukraine, and Poland (see Table 2). In the Netherlands, STV figures show that over the
period of 1992-2000, 55 percent of victims originated from Central and Eastern Europe.
Over the period of 1992-2000, however, the percentage of victims from the
Central and Eastern European countries has been falling in relative terms as the number
of women trafficked from African countries has increased (see Table 3).
There are several reasons that help explain the paucity of data on trafficking. Human
trafficking is an underreported crime for which the majority of cases remain undiscovered.
Lack of data on the scale of trafficking can be attributed to the low priority given
to the combating of human trafficking by authorities in many countries. The reason
for low prioritization appears to be linked to two main factors: first, legislation is often
lacking, inadequate, or not implemented, making the prosecution of traffickers very
difficult and often impossible; second, trafficking convictions are often based on witness
and/or victim testimony. Such testimony is hard to obtain as trafficking victims
are either deported as illegal migrants or, if identified as trafficked persons, are often
too frightened to testify. Inadequate legislation, for both prosecution and for victim
and witness protection, means that the police authorities often prefer not to prosecute
traffickers at all, with the knowledge that much effort only seldom results in a conviction.
In one of the most comprehensive studies on human trafficking in Europe, conducted
by Kelly and Regan in the U.K. in 1999 on behalf of the British government, it
was found that the level of priority given by local police forces to combating trafficking
has an impact on whether or not data are gathered.8 This study found that trafficking
data are produced only where the local police forces monitor the local sex industry as
part of their mandate to combat vice-related crime.9 Unfortunately, such monitoring is
rare, resulting in the attitude that “a problem unseen does not exist.”
Another problem is that many governments and, to a lesser extent, NGOs are
unfamiliar with trafficking; therefore, where relevant data do exist, they are not properly
categorized as trafficking. A recent review of information sources in Central America
and the Caribbean found that:
Existing data systems do not produce information that would assist in formulating
a clear understanding of the phenomenon. Child welfare reports use the most basic
classifications to register children either as juveniles in conflict with the law or at
risk. Information that may be revealed in the course of treatment does not filter into
generalized databases. Statistics on migration, where they exist, are rarely dis-aggregated
by sex. . .10
Despite the lack of data from law enforcement sources, other, new sources of data are
emerging as more agencies around the world take action to combat trafficking. The
U.S. government, for example, reported that in 2001 it supported over 110 anti-trafficking
programs in around 50 countries; in Europe, numerous agencies are implementing
programs to combat trafficking. One problem, however, is that no single
agency acts as a focal point for the collection, collation, or harmonization of statistics
on trafficking either at the national or regional levels. An exception to this general
picture is a new initiative started in June 2002 (described in more detail below) to
establish for southeastern Europe a Regional Clearing Point on National Networks on
Victim Protection and Assistance in Belgrade.
Another problem is that existing data are frequently program-specific. Thus, data
are often based on the various trafficking definitions used by each individual agency
and only cover those who have received certain types of assistance (e.g. persons participating
in voluntary assisted return programs or those accommodated in shelters for
victims of trafficking). Each agency gathers data according to its own needs, and, as a
result, the same individual may appear in data produced by more than one organization.
Data will also vary according to the resources of any given organization. Some are
better financed and accord greater priority to data collection than others. In addition,
some NGOs register first contacts with victims, while others monitor hotline calls or
those eligible for temporary residence permits. Finally, some agencies compile data
Developing Better Indicators of Human Trafficking
over a one-year period, while others produce statistics covering the duration of a specific
At several levels, there is reluctance on the part of agencies within countries and between
countries to share trafficking-related data. For instance, in a recent study of sex
trafficking in the Americas, researchers found that the “little information that is being
collected is not being meaningfully circulated.”11 They go on to report that:
Throughout the region, researchers were told of instances where crucial information
was not shared with appropriate authorities. For example, labor inspectors who
knew of children working in bars and night clubs did not co-ordinate intelligence
with police and prosecutors; judicial authorities have failed to inform consulates of
trafficking cases involving their nationals … lists of suspects involved in international
trafficking is often unavailable to all border posts. Finally, NGO and civil
society sources have valuable information that does not always reach government
In order to combat international trafficking, the sharing of information between countries
is essential. One problem is, however, that at the international level, the sharing of
information on trafficking tends to occur on an ad hoc basis, especially between countries
of origin and destination. Some countries regard data on human trafficking as
classified and, therefore, refrain from sharing such information. In addition, some countries
have data protection laws prohibiting the dissemination of personal information,
while some ministries simply adopt a policy of restricted distribution. Some agencies
are reluctant to release data because their data is so poor. Authorities in destination
countries may also be reluctant to share information with source countries when the
authorities and law enforcement agencies in source countries are themselves believed to
be implicated in trafficking. Finally, NGOs may be reluctant to share data for other
reasons (e.g. to protect the confidentiality of the trafficked persons they assist).
The lack of data on trafficking is part of a wider problem of the relatively poor quality
of data on international migratory movements in general. In July 2002, the United
Nations Population Division drew attention to this problem by organizing an interagency
meeting to discuss ways in which data on international migration could be
improved and made more widely available. The meeting noted that the data needed to
describe international population movements and provide governments with a solid
basis for policy formulation and implementation are far from complete. Thus, against
a background of scarce and unreliable data and expanding demands, it becomes apparent
that the proper and systematic coordination among those who collect and analyze
data on international migration is imperative.
Reliable trafficking data can be compiled only when the appropriate capacity to
produce it exists. One of the key recommendations that emerged from the inter-agency
meeting on migration statistics is the need
for international organizations and governments
to provide greater technical and financial
assistance to developing countries
in order to enable them to collect better
migration data. Therefore, in poorer countries
it is important for capacity building projects intended to upgrade statistical systems
to accord priority to the collection of data on trafficking.
The need for better use and coordination of existing data is particularly applicable
in the case of human trafficking data. There is, now, a clearer international understanding
of the implications of trafficking. An increasing amount of statistical data
on trafficking from a variety of sources is becoming available as the number of countertrafficking
programs increase. It is likely that such data will improve as more NGOs,
intergovernmental organizations, and others intensify their efforts to combat trafficking.
A mechanism to coordinate and standardize these disparate data collection systems
and various indicators of trafficking, however, is still lacking. Much more needs
to be done to improve the comparability of the limited amount of statistical data currently
available from a wide variety of agencies. The Regional Clearing Point (RCP) in
Belgrade for the Balkans is an example of what can be achieved through better data
management. The RCP was established by the Stability Pact for a Southeastern European
Task Force on Trafficking in Human Beings in order to ensure standardized regional
data collection on the effectiveness and continuity of victim assistance and protection.
The project is being implemented by IOM with the co-operation of International
Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC).
The RCP will create a sound mechanism for the collection, consolidation, and
analysis of information for the region. Through the collection and analysis of information
from a wide range of sources, the project intends to foster a comprehensive understanding
of human trafficking throughout the Balkans. This type of project is to be
extended to other regions where IOM implements counter-trafficking programs.
Existing sources of information on trafficking should be fully exploited, including
possible indirect indicators of trafficking. Although relatively few statistics relating
directly to human trafficking exist, there may be other indicators which suggest that
Reliable trafficking data can be
compiled only when the appropriate
capacity to produce it exists.
Developing Better Indicators of Human Trafficking
trafficking is occurring. For example, it is well established that victims of trafficking
often enter a country legally through the likes of an “entertainer” or “au pair” visa. A
1995 IOM study found that there had been a substantial increase in the award of such
visas to young women from Russia arriving in Switzerland.
A more controversial indirect indicator of trafficking is the number of migrant
women working in the sex industry of any given country. For example, a recent Europol
report on trafficking provided figures of the number of prostitutes in the EU originating
from non-EU countries. It was reported that in Italy, 6,000-7,000 prostitutes originated
from non-EU countries and, in Spain 12,000. As Europol pointed out however,
“not all foreign prostitutes are victims of trafficking, but a sizeable proportion is probably
exploited to some degree.”13 Thus, this kind of statistic may be relevant in discussions
concerning the extent of trafficking.
There are many other indicators that could provide more accurate estimates of
trafficking, such as the number, gender, and origin of asylum seekers, figures on the
number of illegal border crossings, statistics of departures of women leaving main countries
of origin, as well as the demand for visas at foreign consulates for the main countries
of transit and destination. In addition, airlines and other companies in the transportation
business may be able to collect and provide information on travelers who are
potential victims of trafficking.
Further research is necessary in order to more fully examine good practices regarding
the collection and analysis of data on trafficking. Why are some countries able
to produce more data on trafficking than others? Why, for instance, has Germany been
able to publish statistics on trafficking since 1994, while most other industrialized
countries have not followed suit? What lessons from particular practices could be learned
and applied elsewhere?
The IOM Counter-Trafficking Module (CTM) Database has been developed to facilitate
the management of information gathered from all IOM Counter-Trafficking and
Return and Reintegration programs. It aims to strengthen both research capacity and
understanding of the causes, processes, trends, and consequences of trafficking, thus
enabling IOM to better target its counter-trafficking policies and programs.
CTM collects first-hand information from IOM field missions working on
counter-trafficking. The mission staff carries out in-depth interviews, based on a standardized
questionnaire, with all trafficked persons assisted by IOM. This interview
allows IOM to understand their socio-economic and family background, their experience
in migration, their recruitment by traffickers, the route taken, the violence and/or
exploitation they suffered, their current condition, and their needs in terms of health,
protection, return, and reintegration. The information collected is entered into the
mission’s database and shared between missions directly involved in the assistance of a
trafficked person. IOM also monitors the reintegration process of returned victims and
enters this information into a database. Ultimately, all information is centralized in
IOM Headquarters in Geneva.
This database was implemented in the Balkan region in 2002 with the intention
of expanding it into a global database that gathers information from all IOM’s Counter-
Trafficking programs world-wide.
The Southeastern Europe database currently includes information on 826 victims
of trafficking, all but one of whom are women and girls. These victims were assisted
by IOM during the period May 2001 to December 2002. The database collects
data on victims of trafficking who were assisted by IOM in the following countries and
• Albania
• Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Serbia and Montenegro
• Kosovo
• Bulgaria
• Romania
• Moldova
An initial analysis of the data suggests some interesting findings.
Socio-economic profile
• There is considerable trafficking not only between Eastern and Western Europe,
but within Central and Eastern Europe (see Table 4). In 2001 and 2002
the vast majority of the 826 victims included in IOM’s database came from
Moldova, Romania and Ukraine.
• Over half of the victims were aged between 18-24, but a significant and disturbing
minority of victims were children: 97 out of 826 (over 10 percent)
were aged 14-17 and 7 were under 14 (see Table 5).
• Approximately one third of the victims had one or more children, though less
than 10 percent were married. In Central and Eastern Europe, as in most
industrialized countries, single mothers have an especially high risk of living in
Developing Better Indicators of Human Trafficking
• Contrary to commonly held beliefs, the majority of victims did not originate
from rural areas and most did not classify themselves as “very poor.” Only 257
out of 826 (about one third) came from rural areas. When asked to assess their
family’s economic status, 17 percent said that it was “very poor” and 56 percent
said it was “poor.”
• Most victims (60 percent) reported that they had been previously employed in
their country of origin, mainly in the private sector.
Recruitment and trafficking process
• The majority of victims (494 out of 826) providing information on how they
were recruited reported that they were contacted by someone in person, in
most cases by an acquaintance or a “friend” (see Table 6).
• In most cases (over 75 percent) the recruiter offered the possibility of finding
work abroad.
• Contrary to commonly held beliefs, many of the recruiters (41percent) were
• A significant minority of victims had no intention of working in the Balkans
and about 20 percent thought that they would be working in Italy.
• Nearly all the women (84 percent) said that they went abroad in search of
work and 80 percent reported that they did not know that they were being
recruited for work related to the sex industry.
• The most typical type of work promised was work as a waitress (21 percent),
domestic worker (11 percent), or “dancer-entertainer” (11 percent).
Exploitation in the destination country
• In the majority of cases (564 out of 826), the purpose of trafficking was sexual
exploitation. There were only six cases of trafficking for domestic work and 36
cases of trafficking for labor in restaurants.
• In six percent of cases, women providing sexual services reported that they
never used a condom and 38 percent reported that condoms were not used
regularly. Nearly 40 percent were denied access to health care.
• Over half of the victims (54 percent) reported that they received no income
for providing sexual services. Others reported receiving some money from
time to time or at the beginning of their contract, but only 18 percent reported
receiving a regular income.
• In eight percent of cases, the victim had previously been trafficked.
• Over half the cases of trafficking (58 percent) were discovered by the police;
but in a significant minority of cases (23 percent), victims of trafficking es190
caped and sought assistance from the authorities.
In recent years, progress has been made in the development of a common understanding
of human trafficking and in the establishment of international legal norms regarding
trafficking in persons. Much less progress has been made, however, in determining
the scale and magnitude of human trafficking and in developing effective ways to collect
helpful data.
Ultimately, data on trafficking will improve only when greater actions are taken
to combat the problem. Unless governments and law enforcement agencies are prepared
to combat trafficking with increased vigor and, at the same time, prepared to
provide adequate protection to the victims of trafficking, the majority of trafficking
cases will continue to go undiscovered.
There is also the potential for data to improve when more countries begin to
enact and implement the necessary anti-trafficking legislation. Though this is likely to
be a slow process, it is possible that data on trafficking will improve as a result of it
This article has argued that several measures should be taken to address the current
data shortage. These measures include:
Raising awareness about the need for better data
Data on trafficking will improve only if states and other agencies give priority to improving
data collection. States could do this by establishing a focal point at the national
level for the collection of trafficking data and, as a first step, “mapping out” relevant
data collected by different agencies within the country.14
Investing resources in capacity building to enable poorer countries to compile better data,
and ensuring that the collection of trafficking data is given sufficient priority
Even if there is a growing willingness to collect better data, many poorer countries lack
the financial and human capacity to develop better data collection systems. It is important
that projects concerned with developing a country’s capacity to create better statistical systems
do not overlook the need to give priority to collecting data on trafficking.
Promoting a better use of existing statistics through national and regional fora
Even without a substantial investment of new resources, much more could be done to
make the existing information regarding trafficking more widely available (e.g. by
promoting the sharing of information among agencies working to combat trafficking
both within and between states). The aforementioned RCP project in Belgrade is an
Developing Better Indicators of Human Trafficking
example of an important initiative in this direction.
Encouraging agencies combating trafficking to systematically collect data and develop common
data collection systems
As illustrated earlier, IOM’s counter-trafficking database provides an example of what
agencies could do in order to collect data on trafficking in a more systematic and
timely fashion. Although these data are program-specific, they provide a rich source of
information about trafficking.
More comparative research to assess a wider range of sources of data relevant to trafficking
and to identify effective data management practices
The number of studies on trafficking is growing, but most research on trafficking
tends to be limited to one country, to be short-term, or to be rather limited in funding.
If data on trafficking is to improve, more detailed comparative research to compare
and assess relevant data sources across countries and effective identification of data
management practices are needed. Such research could, for example, explore the validity
of developing a broader set of indicators of trafficking to include indirect indicators—
such as those discussed above. By adopting such an approach it is likely that
estimates of the number of persons trafficked worldwide will become more accurate
and reliable.
Table 1 - Victims of Trafficking Registered by the BKA in Germany
Source: IOM/German Federal Criminal Office, 2001
840 801
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Table 3 – Registration Data Relating to Reports of (possible) Victims of THB
(over the Period 1992 – 2000)
Trafficked Women Who Were Registered with the German Federal Criminal Office
1999 2000 2001 Total
Ukraine 174 115 128 417
Lithuania 88 162 119 369
Russia 91 140 73 304
Poland 115 74 84 273
Belarus 47 40 140 227
Czech Rep 55 74 Na 129
Latvia 20 43 40 103
Total 801 926 987 2714
CEECs* 712 755 681 2148 (79%)
Table 2 – Recent Trends in Trafficking in Women: Germany
Source: IOM/German Federal Criminal Office, 2001
* Central and Eastern European Countries
Developing Better Indicators of Human Trafficking
N/A Less 14 14 to 171 18 to 24 25 to 30 Over 30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Husband or boyfriend
Parent(s) or Relative
Stranger or Other
Acquaintance, friend,
neighbout or family friend
Table 5 – Age Range of Victims
Table 6 – Relation of the Recruiter to the Victim
Table 4 – Countries of Destination of Trafficking Victims
Source: IOM South Eastern Europe Trafficking Database
Source: IOM South Eastern Europe Trafficking Database
Source: IOM South Eastern Europe Trafficking Database
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
1. “Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children”
and “Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air”, supplementing the “Convention
Against Transnational Organized Crime,” December 2000.
2. Julia O’Connell Davidson and Bridget Donelan, “Review of the Evidence and Debates on the “Demand
Side of Trafficking,” (Save the Children: Stockholm, forthcoming, 2003).
3. Europol, “Crime Assessment: Trafficking in Human Beings Into the European Union,” (The Hague,
2000): 18.
4. IOM, “Trafficking and Prostitution: The Growing Exploitation of Women from Central and Eastern
Europe,” (IOM: Geneva, 1995).
5. IHRLI, “In Modern Bondage: Sex Trafficking in the Americas,” (International Human Rights Law
Institute DePaul University College of Law, Chicago, 2002): 79.
6. The total number of persons trafficked in the Netherlands may be somewhat higher based on other
sources of information. See “Trafficking in Human Beings,” First Report of the Dutch National Rapporteur,
(The Hague, November, 2002): 50-51.
7. Frank Laczko, Amanda Klekowski von Koppenfels, and Jana Barthel, “Trafficking in Women from
Central and Eastern Europe: A Review of Statistical Data,” in New Challenges for Migration Policy in
Central and Eastern Europe, eds, F. Laczko, I. Stacher, and A. Klekowski von Koppenfels, (Asser Press,
The Hague, forthcoming, 2002).
8. Liz Kelly and Linda Regan, “Stopping Traffic: Exploring the Extent of, and Responses to, Trrafficking
in Women for Sexual Exploitation in the U.K.,” (Home Office, Police Research Series, Paper 125,
London, 1999).
9. Ibid.
10. IHRLI, 2002: 79.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Europol, “Crime Assessment: Trafficking in Human Beings Into the European Union,” (The Hague,
14. IOM, “Challenges and Approaches in International Migration Data Management,” Bali Conference
Ad Hoc Expert Group 1, (Colombo, 14 March 2003).

No comments:

Post a Comment