Routledge Handbook of Human Trafficking

by Piotrowicz, Ryszard; Rijken, Conny; Uhl, Baerbel Heide

  Identification of trafficking for exploitation through begging

  In reference to the situation in Belgium and the Netherlands, the most recent report by the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) on the Netherlands refers to a lack of policy-orientated research on trafficking for exploitation through begging in that country – despite praising the availability of research on other forms of trafficking:

  GRETA considers that the question of human trafficking for the purpose of forced begging or petty crimes which affects predominantly children, particularly of Roma origin, deserves further research in the Netherlands as this phenomenon has been witnessed in neighbouring countries where transnational networks have been operating and moving children from one country to another.47

  Research specifically on Romanian and Bulgarian victims of this form of trafficking in the Netherlands and Brussels, published the same year, found, indeed, that children in the company of their families in the Netherlands were not identified as exploited through begging or as trafficked for that purpose. Only one case of forced begging was prosecuted, involving a 13-year-old Romanian girl subjected to forced marriage, violence and abuse. She was forced by her ‘husband’ and ‘father-in-law’ to sell newspapers on the street, and people gave money without buying a newspaper, but the judge classified it as labour exploitation. The case came to the attention of the authorities when it was reported to the police by a passer-by.48

  Field research conducted in 30 European cities in 2011–12, including with those directly involved in begging activities, showed that there are situations in which people ask for financial support in order to survive or to provide for their families.49 While these people present particular needs and require an appropriate response, trafficking situations must also be acknowledged as such in order to provide additional protection measures, and to involve law enforcement.

  Conclusions

  Distinct – and usually administrative, rather than criminal – legal provisions may pose a challenge when begging takes place in the context of exploitation or trafficking. Where begging is subject to sanctions, those involved in begging are liable for their actions. However, when a person has been subjected to trafficking for exploitation through begging and is being penalised for involvement in an illegal activity, they are being penalised for a situation in which they are not in control. For this reason, together with the other arguments set out above, the proper and distinct identification of situations of begging, exploitation of begging and trafficking for exploitation through begging is essential – not least in relation to children involved in begging activities.

  Yet determining the actual incidence of trafficking for exploitation through begging remains elusive. The fact that begging is widespread in certain countries or cities does not necessarily indicate that this form of trafficking is also widespread. Many begging situations are linked to poverty, not trafficking. On the other hand, if authorities, NGOs and other anti-trafficking actors are not aware that exploitation through begging may be a form of trafficking, they are unlikely to identify it, and so it will not appear in statistics. Measuring the phenomenon is even more difficult when it comes to situations of exploitation by parents of their own children. In some jurisdictions, this is never considered to be trafficking, while in others it is considered an aggravating circumstance in the trafficking crime. However, regardless of how the parents in question are treated by the law, a consensus does exist in relation to child begging as a violation of child rights and, therefore, as a child protection concern.

  The implications of what has been set out in this chapter point to a crucial rule-of-thumb in dealing with all cases of begging – involving adults and children. There is no generalised analysis that applies to all begging situations. Begging is not always simply related to poverty; and begging is not always a form of trafficking committed by a criminal network. Therefore, each begging case should be examined according to its own specific characteristics, in terms of child protection issues, discrimination, poverty and marginalisation and the possible presence of criminal acts and human rights violations. Only then can perpetrators of crimes be apprehended and punished where relevant and, even more importantly, only then can vulnerable people and victims of crime be adequately protected, supported and rehabilitated.

  Notes

  1 UNODC, Global Report on Trafficking in Persons 2014 (Vienna: UNODC, 2014), pp. 33–35.

  2 UNODC, Global Report on Trafficking in Persons 2012 (Vienna: UNODC, 2012), p. 37.

  3 Delap, E., Begging for Change (London: Anti-Slavery International, 2009), p. 6; Healy, C. and Rogoz, M., Report for the Study on a Typology and Policy Responses to Child Begging in the EU (Vienna: ICMPD, 2012), pp. 75–76.

  4 Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism (CEOOR), Trafficking in and Smuggling of Human Beings: 15th Annual Report: The Money That Matters (Brussels: CEOOR, 2012).

  5 Ibid., at p. 108.

  6 Delap, E., Begging for Change (London: Anti-Slavery International, 2009); Delap, E., Forced Child Begging Toolkit for Researchers (London: Anti-Slavery International, 2009); Save The Children, Regional Report on Child Begging: Prevalence, Prevention and Suppression of Child Begging (Stockholm: Save the Children Prevention of Child Exploitation in South East Europe, 2011); Cherneva, I., Trafficking for Begging: Old Game, New Name (Self-published e-book, 2011); Cherneva, I., “Human Trafficking for Begging” (2011) 17 Buffalo Human Rights Law Review 25–73; Healy, C. and Rogoz, M., Report for the Study on a Typology and Policy Responses to Child Begging in the EU (Vienna: ICMPD, 2012); Wenke, D., Children Trafficked for Exploitation in Begging and Criminality: A Challenge for Law Enforcement and Child Protection (Stockholm, Sweden: Council of the Baltic Sea States Child Centre, Expert Group for Cooperation on Children at Risk, 2013); Healy, C. and Piotrowicz, R., Manual for Law Enforcement Organisations on Trafficking for the Purposes of Forced Begging (Bucharest: DIICOT, 2013); De Witte, I. and Pehlivan, M.T., Vulnerability of Bulgarian and Romanian Children to Trafficking in the Netherlands and Brussels (Budapest: Mario Project, 2014).

  7 Delap, E., Begging for Change (London: Anti-Slavery International, 2009).

  8 Delap, E., Forced Child Begging Toolkit for Researchers (London: Anti-Slavery International, 2009).

  9 Mario Project, Observation Report: Exploitation of Albanian Children in Street Situation in Kosovo (Budapest: Terre des hommes, 2010).

  10 Save the Children, Regional Report on Child Begging: Prevalence, Prevention and Suppression of Child Begging (Stockholm: Save the Children Prevention of Child Exploitation in South East Europe, 2011).

  11 European Roma Rights Centre and People in Need, Breaking the Silence: Trafficking in Romani Communities (Budapest: ERRC and People in Need, 2011), p. 41.

  12 Cherneva, I., Trafficking for Begging: Old Game, New Name (Self-published e-book, 2011).

  13 Healy, C. and Rogoz, M., Report for the Study on a Typology and Policy Responses to Child Begging in the EU (Vienna: ICMPD, 2012).

  14 Wenke, D., Children Trafficked for Exploitation in Begging and Criminality: A Challenge for Law Enforcement and Child Protection (Stockholm, Sweden: Council of the Baltic Sea States Child Centre, Expert Group for Cooperation on Children at Risk, 2013).

  15 Save the Children, Regional Report on Child Begging: Prevalence, Prevention and Suppression of Child Begging (Stockholm: Save the Children Prevention of Child Exploitation in South East Europe, 2011), p. 12.

  16 ILO, A Rapid Assessment of Bonded Labour in Domestic Work and Begging in Pakistan (Karachi: ILO, 2004), p. 22; Healy, C. and Rogoz, M., Report for the Study on a Typology and Policy Responses to Child Begging in the EU (Vienna: ICMPD, 2012), pp. 18–19; Healy, C. and Piotrowicz, R., Manual for Law Enforcement Organisations on Trafficking for the Purposes of Forced Begging (Bucharest: DIICOT, 2013), pp. 5–6.

  17 Healy, C. and Rogoz, M., Report for the Study on a Typology and Policy Responses to Child Begging in the EU (Vienna: ICMPD, 2012), pp. 230–
231.

  18 Ibid., at pp. 21–26.

  19 Pichlkastner, in Koller, F. (ed.), Betteln in Wien: Fakten und Analysen aus unterschiedlichen Wissenschaftsdisziplinen (Wien: LIT Verlag, 2012), p. 5.

  20 Healy, C. and Piotrowicz, R., Manual for Law Enforcement Organisations on Trafficking for the Purposes of Forced Begging (Bucharest: DIICOT, 2013), p. 72.

  21 Delap, E., Begging for Change (London: Anti-Slavery International, 2009), pp. 14–17; Delap, E., Forced Child Begging Toolkit for Researchers (London: Anti-Slavery International, 2009), p. 38; Save the Children, Regional Report on Child Begging: Prevalence, Prevention and Suppression of Child Begging (Stockholm: Save the Children Prevention of Child Exploitation in South East Europe, 2011), pp. 18–19; Healy, C. and Rogoz, M., Report for the Study on a Typology and Policy Responses to Child Begging in the EU (Vienna: ICMPD, 2012), pp. 308–9 & 324; Wenke, D., Children Trafficked for Exploitation in Begging and Criminality: A Challenge for Law Enforcement and Child Protection (Stockholm, Sweden: Council of the Baltic Sea States Child Centre, Expert Group for Cooperation on Children at Risk, 2013), p. 11; Healy, C. and Piotrowicz, R., Manual for Law Enforcement Organisations on Trafficking for the Purposes of Forced Begging (Bucharest: DIICOT, 2013), p. 107.

  22 Delap, E., Begging for Change (London: Anti-Slavery International, 2009), p. 7; Nigerian Universal Basic Education Commission, 2010, passim; ECOWAS TIP Unit, Annual Synthesis Report on the Implementation of the ECOWAS Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Persons 2012–2013 (Abuja: ECOWAS Commission, 2015), pp. 34–35.

  23 Healy, C. and Rogoz, M., Report for the Study on a Typology and Policy Responses to Child Begging in the EU (Vienna: ICMPD, 2012), pp. 27–28.

  24 Ibid., at p. 163.

  25 Ibid., at p. 36; Wenke, D., Children Trafficked for Exploitation in Begging and Criminality: A Challenge for Law Enforcement and Child Protection (Stockholm, Sweden: Council of the Baltic Sea States Child Centre, Expert Group for Cooperation on Children at Risk, 2013), p. 5.

  26 Metropolitan Police, Restricted Report, Operation Golf, a Joint Investigation Team Targeting a Specific Romanian Organised Crime Network Involved in Crime in London and the Trafficking of Children and Adults for Forced Criminality (Unpublished, 2010). See, also, Healy, C. and Rogoz, M., Report for the Study on a Typology and Policy Responses to Child Begging in the EU (Vienna: ICMPD, 2012), pp. 320–321.

  27 A v. the National Commissioner (Case No. 319/2010), Judgment 31 March 2011.

  28 Ibid., at paragraph 2.

  29 United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Joy Ngozi Ezeilo (A/HRC/23/48) (2013).

  30 Ibid., at paragraph 68.

  31 Healy, C. and Rogoz, M., Report for the Study on a Typology and Policy Responses to Child Begging in the EU (Vienna: ICMPD, 2012), p. 17.

  32 FRA, The Situation of Roma EU Citizens Moving to and Settling in Other EU Member States (Vienna: FRA, 2009), p. 16; FRA, The Situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States: Survey Results at a Glance (Vienna: FRA, 2012), p. 19.

  33 European Roma Rights Centre and People in Need, Breaking the Silence: Trafficking in Romani Communities (Budapest: ERRC and People in Need, 2011), p. 41.

  34 Clé, A. and Andriaenssens, S., La mendicité interrogée: Un résumé succinct de la recherche (Brussels: Université Catholique de Bruxelles and EHSAL – Europese Hogeschool Brussel, 2007), p. 11.

  35 Benedik, S., Tiefenbacher, B., and Zettelbauer, H., Die imaginierte ‘Bettlerflut’. Konstruktion, Organisation und Positionierungen in temporären Migrationen von Roma und Romnija (Klagenfurt: Verlag Drava, 2012), pp. 99–100; Haute école de travail social et de la santé, Rapport sur la mendicité “rrom” avec ou sans enfant(s) (Lausanne: Université de Lausanne, 2012), p. 61.

  36 Delap, E., Begging for Change (London: Anti-Slavery International, 2009), p. 6; Healy, C. and Rogoz, M., Report for the Study on a Typology and Policy Responses to Child Begging in the EU (Vienna: ICMPD, 2012), p. 23; Wenke, D., Children Trafficked for Exploitation in Begging and Criminality: A Challenge for Law Enforcement and Child Protection (Stockholm, Sweden: Council of the Baltic Sea States Child Centre, Expert Group for Cooperation on Children at Risk, 2013), p. 14.

  37 Save the Children, Regional Report on Child Begging: Prevalence, Prevention and Suppression of Child Begging (Stockholm: Save the Children Prevention of Child Exploitation in South East Europe, 2011), p. 34.

  38 Healy, C. and Piotrowicz, R., Manual for Law Enforcement Organisations on Trafficking for the Purposes of Forced Begging (Bucharest: DIICOT, 2013), p. 98.

  39 US Department of State: Country Narrative – Kosovo (Washington, DC: US Department of State, 2011).

  40 Healy, C. and Rogoz, M., Report for the Study on a Typology and Policy Responses to Child Begging in the EU (Vienna: ICMPD, 2012), p. 56.

  41 Decision of 26 May 2010 (Arrêt n° 747).

  42 Healy, C. and Rogoz, M., Report for the Study on a Typology and Policy Responses to Child Begging in the EU (Vienna: ICMPD, 2012), p. 59.

  43 Brownlees, L., Children Speak Out: Trafficking Risk and Resilience in Southeast Europe – Albania Report (Tirana: Save the Children, 2007), p. 11.

  44 Delap, E., Begging for Change (London: Anti-Slavery International, 2009), p. 19.

  45 Healy, C. and Rogoz, M., Report for the Study on a Typology and Policy Responses to Child Begging in the EU (Vienna: ICMPD, 2012), p. 27.

  46 OSCE, Office of the Special Representative and Coordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings, Policy and Legislative Recommendations Towards the Effective Implementation of the Non-Punishment Provision With Regard to Victims of Trafficking (Vienna: OSCE, 2013), SEC.GAL/73/13.

  47 Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA), Report Concerning the Implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings by the Netherlands (Strasbourg: GRETA, 2014), p. 10, paragraph 95.

  48 De Witte, I. and Pehlivan, M.T., Vulnerability of Bulgarian and Romanian Children to Trafficking in the Netherlands and Brussels (Budapest: Mario Project, 2014), p. 33.

  49 Healy, C. and Rogoz, M., Report for the Study on a Typology and Policy Responses to Child Begging in the EU (Vienna: ICMPD, 2012), p. 30.

  Part 3

  Particular legal issues

  14

  The non-punishment provision with regard to victims of trafficking

  A human rights approach1

  Ryszard Piotrowicz and Liliana Sorrentino

  Criminalisation of victims: unjust and contrary to human rights

  People are trafficked for a variety of exploitative purposes, ranging from sexual and labour exploitation to forced criminality, forced begging, and many other lucrative activities. Traffickers increasingly involve their victims in illicit activities, such as holding false documents, theft, pickpocketing, drug smuggling, drug dealing, cannabis cultivation and fraud. This is a specific criminal strategy, which enables traffickers to achieve further subjugation and control of their victims, who become even more afraid of seeking help. Indeed, trafficked persons face a real and substantial risk of being arrested or otherwise punished. The criminalisation of trafficked persons is an all too common practice across the globe. It is not only a manifest injustice, which further traumatises victims of a serious crime, but also detrimental to the very prosecution of the crime of trafficking.

  While those who traffic and exploit people often enjoy impunity, trafficked persons are all too frequently denied justice and redress, and are even punished. Trafficked persons are often criminalised for offences related to their trafficking situation; in other words, the State fails to recognise that they are victims of crime, and instead of protecting them treats them as law violators. Time and again, law enforcement authorities do not see the victim behind ‘the criminal’ they encounter. As a result, trafficked persons are arrested, charged, detained, or deported for violations of immigration or labour law, or of pub
lic order regulations, for prostitution-related offences, for crimes their traffickers forced them to commit, or for other offences they committed as a result of their trafficking situation.

  Prosecution and detention of victims have a serious detrimental impact on their psychological and physical health, resulting in their re-victimisation and re-traumatisation at the hands of State authorities. Recent clinical studies indicate that: “Being detained or imprisoned further to a trafficking experience can result in cumulative trauma, self-harming behaviours, suicidal ideation, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder”.2 Such an experience also exacerbates the victim’s condition of vulnerability and increases the risk that they might be re-trafficked or disappear after their release. In the case of child victims, unjust prosecution, detention, and other punishment heightens even further their trauma, vulnerability, and hardship stemming from the trafficking experience.

  In addition, imprisonment and detention of victims further undermines their trust in the authorities, as well as their ability and willingness to effectively co-operate with them in the prosecution of their traffickers. When victims are deported, they cannot testify against the criminals, and the prosecution of the trafficking crime is compromised. “Criminalization [of trafficked persons] is the antithesis of a victim-centred approach”; it is a denial of their rights.3

  The rationale behind the non-punishment provision

  The non-punishment provision intends to address exactly this paradox, whereby victims of trafficking are punished for offences committed as a consequence and/or as a result of their trafficking situation, while traffickers and their accomplices are seldom arrested, investigated, prosecuted, or convicted.