The Council of Europe as an organisation whose primary concern is to safeguard and protect human rights has attempted to ensure that its member states adopt measures to combat trafficking and protect the victims of trafficking.[1] Foreign Affairs Ministers called for reinforced action by the Council of Europe at the112th session of the Committee of Ministers, on 14-15 May 2003. There it was stressed that trafficking constitutes a serious human rights abuse which is of great concern to European citizens.Support was also expressed for the European Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings which it was argued should aim towards balancing human rights and prosecution and should build on United Nations achievements in this area whilst seeking to facilitate the implementation of international law.

The Steering Committee for Equality between Women and Men (CDEG) has engaged in a number of activities to combat trafficking since the 1990s, including seminars on trafficking and awareness raising.In 2002 a group of specialists undertook a study of the impact of new technology on trafficking under the auspices of the CDEG.[2]

The Committee of Ministers Recommendations on trafficking include: Recommendation R(2000)11, which was adopted in May 2000.It recommends a number of courses of action, including that member states review their legislation and practice in relation to trafficking and that they apply measures set out in the appendix to the Recommendation. In October 2001 the Committee of Ministers adopted Recommendation Rec(2001)16 on the protection of children against sexual exploitation. This Recommendation covers measures relating to the trafficking of children as well as child prostitution, child pornography and international co-operation in these areas. It suggests criminal sanctions for these offences and calls on governments to consider taking measures to establish extra-territorial jurisdiction over such offences where the offence is committed by one of their nationals or a person resident in their state, or where the victim is a national of their state.

In Chahal v UK in 1996, the European Court found that the proposed deportation of the applicant because his presence in the UK was not considered conducive to the public good, due to reasons of national security, would result in a real risk of a violation of his rights under Article 3, ECHR. The protection of Article 3 is therefore guaranteed in all circumstances, regardless of national security concerns. In the case of Ahmed v Austria in 1996, despite the fact that the applicant had committed serious criminal offences in the respondent state, he could not be expelled from the state because of a real a risk of a violation of the his rights under Article 3 on return to Somalia.

Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights protects the right to liberty and security of person. Article 5(1) states that deprivation of liberty must be in accordance with the law and lists the circumstances in which individuals may be detained, article 5(1)(f) states that a person may be detained "to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country" or when "action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition".Judgments of the European Courts have mainly focused on the second part of this provision. In the case of Chahal v UK the European Court stated that for detention to be considered as being ‘with a view to deportation'; deportation proceedings must be in progress and that if such proceedings are not prosecuted with due diligence, the detention will cease to be permissible under Article 5(1)(f).[3] Article 5(4) provides that persons deprived of their liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings to decide the lawfulness of their detention. In the case of Conka v Belgium where the applicants were arrested with a view to deportation, the Court found that Article 5(1) and 5(4) had been violated. They stated that Article 5 includes an the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of national law and that in addition to this any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness. The Court also dealt with the applicants claim under Article 13, the right to an effective remedy and stated that this provision guarantees remedies to enforce the substance of Convention rights. In the case of Conka although there was a right of appeal against arrest and expulsion this could only be exercised after the expulsion had been carried out and therefore was not considered to be effective as there was no realistic possibility of exercising this remedy.

[1] Council of Europe Information note prepared by the Secretariat, on Action undertaken by the Council of Europe in the field of Trafficking, TRAFFICKING (2003) INFO rev, 13 May 2003

[2] Final report

[3] paragraph 113 (Case report)