Effectiveness Of Anti-Trafficking Legislation
Anti-trafficking legislation—national and international—aims to prevent trafficking, protect victims, and prosecute offenders. Its effectiveness depends on how well the law addresses the complex nature of trafficking, including coercion, deception, abuse of vulnerability, and organized criminal networks.
1. Strengths of Anti-Trafficking Legislation
a. Broad Definitions of Trafficking
Modern laws generally adopt a wide definition that includes:
Recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons
Means such as coercion, fraud, abuse of power
Purpose of exploitation (sexual, labour, forced labour, organ removal, servitude, etc.)
This aligns with the UN Palermo Protocol, enabling courts to prosecute a wide range of exploitative practices.
b. Victim-Centric Provisions
Many laws now include:
Non-punishment provisions (victims should not be punished for crimes committed under coercion)
Rehabilitation and compensation
Confidentiality during trial
c. Stronger Penalties
Trafficking offences carry high punishments, often comparable to serious organized crimes. This acts as a deterrent.
d. Specialized Courts and Task Forces
Certain jurisdictions created special anti-human-trafficking courts and investigative units, leading to faster trials and improved conviction rates.
2. Limitations and Practical Challenges
Despite strong laws, trafficking persists because of:
a. Low Conviction Rates
Convictions often fail due to:
Poor investigation
Lack of evidence
Victims turning hostile
Intimidation by traffickers
b. Poor Identification of Victims
Many victims (especially labour and domestic workers) are misidentified as offenders or undocumented migrants.
c. Inadequate Rehabilitation
Victim support is often insufficient:
Few shelters
Lack of vocational training
Poor compensation enforcement
d. High Demand and Socio-Economic Vulnerabilities
Poverty, gender inequality, and demand for cheap labour or sexual services continue to fuel trafficking.
Important Case Laws Explained in Detail
Below are six major cases from different jurisdictions that significantly shaped anti-trafficking jurisprudence.
1. Vishal Jeet v. Union of India (1990, India)
Facts
Petitioner highlighted the increasing prostitution of children and trafficking of young girls in various Indian states. He sought directions for government intervention.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that:
Trafficking and child prostitution violate Article 23 (prohibition of trafficking and forced labour).
The State must take proactive measures to rescue and rehabilitate victims.
Courts directed the government to establish advisory committees, rehabilitation homes, protective shelters, and awareness programs.
Impact
This case established constitutional responsibility of the State to curb trafficking and provided the foundation for later anti-trafficking schemes.
2. Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal (2011–2020, India)
Facts
A sex worker was brutally murdered. During the trial, the larger issue of sex workers’ rights and rehabilitation arose.
Judgment
The Supreme Court recognized:
Sex workers are entitled to dignity and equal protection of law.
The State must provide rehabilitation, healthcare, legal aid, and opportunities for livelihood.
Sex workers should not be criminalized for being in the profession under compulsion or coercion.
Impact
The case expanded the concept of victim protection and compelled India to adopt a more humanitarian approach in anti-trafficking efforts.
3. S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras (1965, India)
Facts
A girl aged 17 voluntarily eloped with an adult. He was charged with kidnapping.
Judgment
The Supreme Court clarified that:
Trafficking and kidnapping require inducement or active involvement.
Simply accompanying a minor is not trafficking unless the accused played a role in influencing or compelling her.
Impact
This case is often cited to differentiate between consensual elopement and trafficking or abduction, preventing misuse of trafficking laws.
4. People v. Santos (Philippines, 2004)
Facts
Several girls were recruited for work but were forced into prostitution. The accused argued that the girls had consented.
Judgment
Court held:
Consent of the victim is irrelevant when trafficking involves fraud, coercion, or abuse of vulnerability.
Trafficking can occur even if victims initially agreed to travel or work.
Impact
This case strengthened the interpretation that consent is not a defense in trafficking cases, aligning with international standards.
5. Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia (2010, European Court of Human Rights)
Facts
A young Russian woman was trafficked to Cyprus under a “cabaret artiste” visa program. She died while trying to escape. Her father filed a complaint alleging failure of both states to protect her.
Judgment
The ECHR held:
Trafficking violates Article 4 of the European Convention (prohibition of slavery and forced labour).
Both states failed in their duty to protect victims and investigate effectively.
Countries have positive obligations to prevent trafficking, protect victims, and conduct thorough investigations.
Impact
One of the most significant international cases affirming that inadequate protection and investigation amount to a human-rights violation.
6. The Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al. (ICTY, 2001)
Facts
During the Bosnian war, women and girls were enslaved, raped, and traded among soldiers.
Judgment
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia held:
Systematic sexual enslavement is a form of trafficking and a crime against humanity.
Control, coercion, detention, and repeated abuse constituted enslavement.
Impact
This landmark ruling established the interpretation of trafficking and sexual slavery within international criminal law.
Conclusion
Effectiveness – Key Takeaways
Anti-trafficking laws are strong on paper, with broad definitions and strict punishments.
Their effectiveness improves significantly when paired with active policing, victim-friendly procedures, and socio-economic support systems.
Landmark cases have expanded victim rights, clarified legal definitions, and obligated states to take preventive and remedial measures.
RELATED Blog
comments