This section addresses labour rights abuses in international and domestic criminal law, focusing on three interconnected forms of exploitation and abuse with many common elements:

  1. Forced labour
  2. Child labour
  3. Human trafficking
Forced labour
Child labour
Human trafficking

Forced labour

  1. International human rights law
    Forced labour is defined as work that is performed involuntarily and under the threat of penalty1. The prohibition of forced labour has been recognized as a norm of customary international law, which is binding on all states, known as an erga omnes obligation2.  Recently included in the list of jus cogens3 norms, this means that the prohibition is absolute and non-derogable in nature4. Several international instruments require states to abolish forced labour, implement legislation to prohibit and criminalize such conduct and also punish the perpetrators of forced labour5.  Perpetrators of such conduct may be natural persons, being actual persons, or juristic persons, being persons of legal creation such as corporations. Corporations are at risk of criminal liability both for direct involvement in forced labour (by employing workers themselves or through subcontractors), or through indirect involvement (by facilitating, assisting, or benefitting from the perpetrator’s criminal actions).Under international criminal law, forced or compulsory labour must meet the definitional requirements of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The most obvious parallel is the crime of enslavement, explicitly prohibited by the Rome Statute under Article 7(1)(c), when forming part of a crime against humanity. However, the contextual requirements of a crime against humanity (i.e., as part of an attack against a civilian population, which is widespread or systematic) are likely to exclude the vast majority of cases of forced labour, meaning that prosecutions will instead be focused on other international instruments and domestic legislation. The ILO Forced Labour Convention (No. 29), which is almost universally ratified, authoritatively defines forced labour, as: 

    • all work or service; 
    • which is exacted from any person under the threat of a penalty; and
    • for which the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily6

    The ILO Indicators of Forced Labour7 was drafted in an effort to help identify, protect against and prevent situations of forced labour and sets out the most typical indicators of this type of abuse. These are:

    • Abuse of vulnerability 
    • Deception 
    • Restriction of movement 
    • Isolation 
    • Physical and sexual violence 
    • Intimidation and threats 
    • Retention of identity documents 
    • Withholding of wages 
    • Debt bondage 
    • Abusive working and living conditions 
    • Excessive overtime 

    In one situation of forced labour, only a single indicator may be present; in another, several indicators may, taken together, amount to forced labour. The list should not be read as exhaustive but as pointing to the main possible elements of a situation of forced labour and providing a basis to assess whether forced labour has occurred.

    Work or service
    For conduct to be forced labour, it is required that the victim undertake some type of work or service. This should be distinguished from obligations involving education or training8. It may be any type of work occurring in any activity, industry or sector including in the informal economy. Exceptions to the “forced labour” definition include: 

    • compulsory military service; 
    • normal civic obligations; 
    • prison labour (under certain conditions); 
    • work in emergency situations (such as war, calamity or threatened calamity, e.g. fire, flood, famine, earthquake, etc.); or
    • minor communal services (within the community)9.

    Threat of any penalty
    This element requires that a threat of any penalty be used to compel the labour. This could include situations in which persons are coerced to work through the use of violence or intimidation, or by more subtle means, such as manipulated debt, retention of identity papers or threats of denunciation to immigration authorities (in the case of undocumented migrants). The coercion is understood in broad terms, including not only physical compulsion but also situations of the type where “the compelled party is offered a choice between disagreeable alternatives and chooses the lesser of two evils.”10

    Involuntariness
    Labour obtained involuntarily is without the free and informed consent of the worker to perform the work and without his or her freedom to leave at any time. For example, consent cannot be free and informed when an employer or recruiter makes false promises inducing the worker to take a job he or she would not otherwise have accepted.11

  2. International criminal law
    1. Enslavement as a crime against humanity
      The prohibition of enslavement as a crime against humanity is found under Article 7(1)(c) of the ICC’s Rome Statute12. For the purposes of that prohibition, enslavement means: “the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children.”13 The ICC’s Elements of Crimes document sets out the definitional requirements of enslavement as a crime against humanity, including that: 

    2. The perpetrator exercised the requisite power over one or more person
      In order to establish that a perpetrator committed the crime of enslavement, it must be shown that the perpetrator exercised any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over one or more persons.Reference to purchasing, selling, lending or bartering makes clear that the definition of enslavement encompasses traditional conceptions of slavery, where persons are treated as ‘chattel’15, capable of being traded or transferred.16 However the ICC’s elaboration of the type of power the perpetrator is required to exercise over the enslaved also includes other circumstances of enslavement where victims, if not treated as chattel, nonetheless find themselves in a “situation of dependence which entails his or her deprivation of any form of autonomy.”17 This broader conception of the type of power the perpetrator may wield over the enslaved includes trafficking in persons (particularly women and children)18; or otherwise reducing a person to servile status, including through debt bondage, serfdom, forced marriage, child exploitation, or forced labour19. Whether or not particular conduct will satisfy the definition of enslavement is to be determined on a case-by-case basis20. Circumstances which might go to establishing enslavement and demonstrating that the perpetrator exercised the requisite power include the following:

      • control of someone’s movement; 
      • control of their physical environment; 
      • psychological control;
      • measures taken to prevent or deter escape;
      • force, threat of force or coercion;
      • duration; 
      • assertion of exclusivity; 
      • subjection to cruel treatment and abuse; 
      • control of sexuality; and
      • forced labour.21

      Determination of whether the labour was forced or involuntary is a factual question to be determined in light of all the circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Particular consideration will be given to the issue of consent: 

      The consent or free will of the victim is absent. It is often rendered impossible or irrelevant by, for example, the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion; the fear of violence, deception or false promises; the abuse of power; the victim’s position of vulnerability; detention or captivity, psychological oppression or socio-economic conditions.22

    3. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population
    4. The perpetrator knew or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population
    5. The perpetrator committed the rape with intent and knowledge.
  3. Domestic law

    1. Forced labour laws in the United States (US)
      In the US, the offence of forced labour is criminalized under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (2000) (‘TVPA’)23, defined as:

      • providing or obtaining labour;
      • by threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint, against;
      • the victim or another person; 
      • by means of any scheme, plan, pattern intended to cause the victims to believe that, if they did not perform such labour or services, they or another person would suffer serious harm or restraint; or 
      • by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of legal process.24

      For the purposes of the TVPA, “serious harm” is defined to mean any harm, whether physical or non-physical including psychological, financial (e.g., by withholding wages), or reputational harm, that is sufficiently serious to compel a reasonable person of the same background and in the same circumstances as the victim, to perform the labour or services (i.e., to compel them to continue working). 

      Importantly, however, the act also envisages a range of coercive circumstances, whereby the perpetrator uses the law or legal processes, whether administrative, civil or criminal, in a manner or for any purpose for which it was not designed, in order to exert pressure on another person to cause that person to take some action or to refrain from taking some action. This would, for example, be relevant to cases involving undocumented workers who are controlled through threats to report them to immigration officials or to the police.25 

      Anyone who commits or knowingly benefits from the crime of forced labour shall be subject to a fixed term of imprisonment. In this way, anyone who benefits knowingly and financially from participating in a venture that has engaged in forced labour is also criminally liable and may also be punished with imprisonment. As a “person” may include a legal person, this provision allows for companies to be prosecuted for knowingly benefitting from forced labour in their commercial activities26. Finally, it should also be noted that the TVPA (Reauthorization 2008) established extra-territoriality over forced labour offences, where either the alleged offender is:

      • a US national or permanent resident; or 
      • where the alleged offender is present in the US.

      This allows for civil or criminal liability to arise in respect of any natural or legal person located in the US for the offence of forced labour occurring anywhere in the world. Consequently, a US-based company that engages in severe labour exploitation in its operations in other countries could still be prosecuted or sued for damages in US courts for this conduct.

    2. Forced labour laws in Australia
      In Australia, forced labour is criminalized under the Criminal Code Act 1995. The Criminal Code also contains offences for dealing with the proceeds or instruments of crime. Pursuant to the Criminal Code, forced labour will occur when:

      • coercion, threat or deception is used;
      • a reasonable person in the position of the victim would not consider himself or herself to be free:
      • to cease providing the labour or services; or 
      • to leave the place or area where the victim provides the labour or services.27 

      A person may be a victim of forced labour whether or not he or she can physically escape their situation and regardless of whether or not they have attempted to escape. Under the Criminal Code, both individuals and corporate bodies may be found guilty of the offence. Corporate bodies may be held liable where: 

      • a physical element of an offence is committed by an employee, agent or officer of a body corporate acting within the actual or apparent scope of his or her employment, or within his or her actual or apparent authority; and
      • the fault (mental) element may be attributed to the body corporate in that it gave express, tacit or implied authorization or permission.28 

      For example, a corporation may be found criminally liable for the commission of forced labour if it can be shown that the board of directors, intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carried out the conduct of forced labour, or expressly, tacitly or by implication authorized or permitted the commission of the offence.29

    3. Forced labour laws in France
      Under the French Penal Code, the crime of forced labour is defined as:

      • subjecting a person;
      • whose vulnerability or dependence is obvious or known to the offender; 
      • to working or living conditions incompatible with human dignity.30 

      In satisfying these elements under the penal code, unpaid work obtained by taking advantage of the vulnerability of the victim or subjecting such a person to degrading working conditions suffices for the crime of forced labour to be committed. “Voluntariness” is irrelevant in establishing this element, since any consent that was given to the working conditions was given by a vulnerable or otherwise coerced person.31 

      Generally speaking, French law recognises that corporations and other legal entities can be held liable for the criminal offences they commit, provided that these offences can be attributed to one of the company’s “organs”, or representatives, and that it can be shown that the offences were committed on their behalf. Therefore, corporations can be found criminally liable for offences such as forced labour32. A company that is convicted on indictment for forced labour will be ordered to pay fines, while individuals who suffered harm as a result of the offence, can, in tandem, sue companies for civil injury and request remedy.

      Duty of Vigilance Law

      The Duty of Vigilance law, which was legislated in 2017,33 requires of parent companies (albeit under civil law) that they identify and prevent human rights violations resulting from their own activities, from activities of their subsidiaries (companies they control), and from activities of their subcontractors and suppliers with whom they have established a working relationship34. The law imposes obligations on corporate entities to assess the risks of serious environmental and human rights harms that their activities might inflict, and to detail how those risks are being managed in “vigilance plans” in order to prevent and mitigate these impacts, and to monitor and transparently report outcomes. Civil liability may arise under the law where companies: 

      • fail to produce and/or publish a plan; 
      • produce and/or publish a plan that is inadequate in addressing identifiable risks; or 
      • cause harm that could have been reasonably avoided had an adequate plan been adopted.
    4. Alternative domestic routes to redress forced labour – deceptive business practices
      This framework provides a different legal avenue for corporate accountability as it does not hold the corporation responsible for the crime of forced labour per se. Rather, it imposes obligations requiring of corporate actors that they abide by their codes of conduct and/or that their public statements are true, accurate and correspond to reality. The offence requires that companies uphold the guarantees they claim for their products and services. A company claiming that the labour input to its supply chain meets fair labour standards, when in fact the company is the beneficiary of forced labour, may be held criminally liable, but for the deceptive or false guarantee rather than for the offence of forced labour.FranceIn France, “misleading advertising” is punishable under criminal law and can result in sanctions requiring rectification of the misleading advertising, and sometimes even dissolution of the company35. Under French law, a company can be held liable for deceptive business practices if misleading or deceptive conduct is directed to consumers, professionals or non-professionals, and materially distorts, or is likely to distort, the economic behaviour of the consumer. Such deception can occur: 

      • by action (e.g., providing false information, or pursuing a deceptive marketing strategy); or
      • by omission (e.g., remaining silent on key information). 

      Having established the above, it must also be proved that the corporation acted with intent to deceive customers and to undermine or negate the latter’s freedom of choice or consent. This legal framework, however, does not allow the direct victims e.g., victims of forced labour to be compensated. 

      United States

      In the US there are laws in some states (e.g., California) that prohibit unfair competition practices through deceptive or abusive acts36. The law provides that “unfair competition” may include: 

      • any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice; or
      • any unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising; or 
      • any act prohibited by the false advertising law.37

      Similarly, the false advertising laws make it unlawful for a corporation to induce the public to enter into any obligation through a statement that is untrue or misleading concerning its services. When such conduct is considered criminal in nature, it may be examined by a public prosecutor. Here, it is sufficient for the purpose of establishing such violation to show that members of the public were likely to be (rather than actually were) deceived by the false advertising or promotional practices.38

Child labour

  1. International human rights law
    Child labour is work that deprives children of their childhood, their dignity and their potential, and that is harmful to their physical and mental development. It is work that interferes with their schooling by: depriving them of the opportunity to attend school; obliging them to leave school prematurely; or requiring them to attempt to combine school attendance with excessively long and heavy work. The ILO explains that “whether or not particular forms of “work” can be called “child labour” depends on the child’s age, the type and hours of work performed, the conditions under which it is performed and the objectives pursued by individual countries. The answer varies from country to country, as well as among sectors within countries.”39 Various international and regional instruments prohibit child labour and impose on states obligations for its elimination40.  The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires of state parties that they recognise “the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental or spiritual, moral or social development.”41  The ILO’s Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention is the first ILO convention to achieve ratification by all member states42. It imposes on state parties obligations to combat the worst forms of child labour; these being: 

    • all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery;
    • the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution and/or pornography; 
    • the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities; 
    • work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.43

    Additionally, international treaties44 call on states to establish: 

    • a minimum age for entry into work or employment; and 
    • national policies for the elimination of child labour. 

    The ILO Convention on Minimum Age provides for a minimum age of 15 years for admission to employment, although developing states may initially set the minimum age at 1445.  Where the employment is likely to ‘jeopardise the health, safety or morals of young persons’, the minimum age is raised to 18.46  The type of employment that is likely to have hazardous effects for the health, safety or morals of young persons is to be determined by competent national authorities but also bearing in mind the need to read C138 provisions in light of C 182 prohibiting all worst forms of child labour.47 

    Different states not only have policies and binding laws regulating the employment of minors, but they have also criminalised the type of child labour prohibited under international treaties. Responsibility for such crimes may be imposed on individuals (natural persons) and on legal persons such as companies. Corporations can be liable as perpetrators through direct involvement in child labour, by employing child workers through recruitment agencies or subcontractors, or through indirect involvement, by facilitating, assisting, or benefitting from the direct perpetrator’s criminal actions. They have legally binding responsibilities to ensure that such practices are addressed and prevented in their supply chains and business operations.

  2. International criminal law
    Child labour, with the exception of conscription into armed forces, is not expressly criminalised under the ICC’s Rome Statute. Nonetheless, it is possible that child labour, particularly if it is causing of severe mental or physical harm, may be subsumed under other explicitly prohibited acts in the Rome Statute.

    1. Recruiting or enlisting children in armed conflicts
      Recruiting or enlisting children in armed conflicts are very clearly proscribed as war crimes under articles 8(2)(b)(xxvi) and 8(2)(e)(vii) of the Rome Statute. These follow on the proscriptions contained in Additional Protocols I and II. Parties to an international armed conflict “shall take all feasible measures” so that children under the age of 15, “do not take part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces.”48 Parties involved in non-international armed conflict are required to ensure that “children who have not attained the age of fifteen years shall neither be recruited in the armed forces or groups nor allowed to take part in hostilities.”49 Importantly, these prohibitions are part of customary international law, and can also be found in other international instruments such as human rights treaties 50. The ILO’s Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention expressly prohibits “forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict.”51  These offences require it to be shown that:

      1. the perpetrator conscripted or enlisted one or more persons into national armed forces or an armed force or group, or used one or more persons to participate actively in hostilities; 
      2. such person or persons were under the age of 15 years;
      3. the perpetrator knew or should have known that such person or persons were under the age of 15 years;
      4. the crime was committed in the context of and associated with an armed conflict, either of an international or non-international character;
      5. the perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict; and
      6. the perpetrator committed the act with intent and knowledge.
    2. The perpetrator conscripted or enlisted one or more persons into national armed forces or an armed force or group or used one or more persons to participate actively in hostilities
      For the first element to be satisfied, it must be shown that the perpetrator conscripted or enlisted one or more persons in national armed forces or an armed force or group or used one or more persons to participate actively in hostilities. The term ‘conscripting’ is defined as ‘to enlist compulsorily’ whereas the term ‘enlisting’ is defined as ‘to enrol (voluntarily) on the list of a military body.’52  The crime of conscription requires that compulsion be shown. This may take the form of: 

      • a legal obligation; 
      • brute force;
      • threat of force; or 
      • psychological pressure amounting to coercion.53

      The crime of ‘enlistment’ has been held to entail ‘accepting and enrolling individuals when they volunteer to join an armed force or group.’54  Although the crime of ‘enlistment’ involves voluntary enrolment on the part of the victim, it will often be the case that girls and boys under the age of 15 are unable to give genuine and informed consent when enlisting in an armed group or force.55 

      The crimes of ‘enlistment’ and ‘conscription’ will be committed even if there is no nexus between the act and an armed conflict. Although often, the purpose behind conscription and enlistment is to use children in hostilities, this is not a requirement of the Rome Statute.56  This makes these offences distinct from the crime of using children to actively participate in hostilities.

    3. The perpetrator used one or more persons to participate actively in hostilities
      This crime does not depend upon the child having previously been conscripted or enlisted57, but requires that the activity undertaken by the child was related to hostilities58.  The Rome Statute’s use of the term, “participating actively in hostilities” as opposed to Additional Protocol I’s requirement of “direct participation” indicates an intention to capture a broad range of activities and roles performed by child combatants.59 Children may be involved in a myriad of roles that support the combatants. The decisive factor when determining whether the crime of ‘using’ children under the age of 15 to participate actively in hostilities has occurred will be whether ‘the support provided by the child to the combatants exposed him or her to real danger as a potential target.’60  Activities which may fall within the scope of ‘actively participating in hostilities’ include logistical, labour or other support that gives effect to, or helps maintain the operations of the armed force or group in a conflict. Such activities might include: 

      • carrying load for the fighting faction; 
      • finding and/or acquiring food, ammunition or equipment;
      • acting as decoys;
      • carrying messages;
      • makings trails or finding routes;
      • manning checkpoints or acting as human shields; or
      • spying or scouting.61
    4. Such person or persons were under the age of 15 years
      The three distinct crimes of ‘enlisting’, ‘conscripting’ or ‘using’ children will only be committed if it can be established that the victim or victims were under 15 years of age. Proving the age of children is not a straightforward task, especially in places where accurate official records of births are either not maintained or not available62. In the absence of official or precise records, age is a factual finding to be determined on a case-by-case basis.63
      2.2.3. The perpetrator knew or should have known the age of the person or persons
      Additionally, the perpetrator must have known (or the circumstances must have been such that they should have known) that the victim was under 15 years of age (see mental elements, below).
    5. The crime was committed in the context of and associated with an armed conflict, either of an international or non-international character
    6. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict
    7. The perpetrator committed the act with intent and knowledge
  3. Domestic law
    1. Child labour laws in the United States
      In the US, the crime of child labour is addressed in both state and federal law. As with forced labour, the offence of child labour can be found in the federal law Trafficking Victims Protection Act (2000) (‘TVPA’)64 and subsequent reauthorizations, under which it is defined as: 

      • providing or obtaining labour;
      • by threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against;
      • the victim or another person; 

      by means of any scheme, plan, pattern intended to cause the victims to believe that, if they did not perform such labour or services, they or another person would suffer serious harm or restraint; or 

      • by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of legal process.65

      For the purposes of the TVPA, ‘serious harm’ is defined to mean any harm, whether physical or non-physical including psychological, financial (e.g., by withholding wages), or reputational, that is sufficiently serious to compel a reasonable person of the same background and in the same circumstances as the victim, to perform the labour or services (i.e., to compel them to continue working).66  The act also envisages a range of coercive circumstances, whereby a perpetrator uses the law or legal processes, whether administrative, civil, or criminal, in a manner or for any purpose for which it was not designed, in order to exert pressure on another person to cause that person to take some action or refrain from taking some action. This would, for example, be relevant to cases involving undocumented children who are controlled through threats to report them to immigration authorities or to police.67

      The offence of child labour therefore requires the presence of force, coercion, or fraud. Anyone who commits the crime of child labour shall be subject to a fixed term of imprisonment. Commission includes the act of knowingly benefiting from child labour. As a criminally liable ‘person’ may include a legal person, this provision allows for companies to be prosecuted for knowingly benefitting from child labour in their commercial activities68. Finally, TVPA (reauthorization 2008) establishes extra-territoriality over child labour offences, where either the alleged offender is:

      • a US national or permanent resident; or 
      • where the alleged offender is present in the US.

      This allows for civil or criminal liability to be imposed on any natural or legal person located in the US for the offence of child labour occurring anywhere in the world. Consequently, a US-based company that engages in child labour in its operations in other countries could still be prosecuted or sued for damages in US courts for this conduct.

    2. Child labour laws in France
      In France it is expressly prohibited to employ minors under the age of 18 in activities which are dangerous or contrary to public morality and constitute a criminal offence69. Additionally, it is a crime to procure a minor for sexually related offences, such as prostitution and child pornography.70 Generally speaking, French law recognises that corporations and other legal entities can be held liable for the criminal offences they commit, provided that these offences can be attributed to one of the company’s ‘organs’, or representatives, and that it can be shown that the offences were committed on their behalf. A company that is convicted on indictment for child labour will be ordered to pay fines, while individuals who suffered harm as a result of the offence, can, in tandem, sue companies for civil injury and request remedy. Duty of Vigilance LawThe Duty of Vigilance law, enacted in 201771, establishes a legally binding obligation (albeit under civil law) on parent corporations to identify and prevent human rights violations resulting from their own activities, from activities of their subsidiaries (companies they control), and from activities of their subcontractors and suppliers with whom they have established a working relationship72. This law imposes obligations on corporate entities to assess the risks of serious environmental and human rights harms that their activities might inflict, and to detail how those risks are being managed in ‘vigilance plans’ in order to mitigate and prevent these impacts and to track and transparently report outcomes. Civil liability may arise under the law where companies: (i) fail to produce and/or publish a plan; (ii) produce and/or publish a plan that is inadequate in addressing identifiable risks; or (iii) cause harm that could have been reasonably avoided had an adequate plan been adopted.
    3. Child labour laws in the Netherlands
      In 2019, the Netherlands introduced the Child Labour Due Diligence Act, which established a duty of care on companies to prevent the supply of goods or services which have been produced using child labour and to investigate whether such practices occur in their supply chains73. The law defines child labour as: 

      • any form of work;
      • that qualifies as one of the ‘worst forms of child labour’ as defined in article 3 of the ILO, Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour (No. 182);74
      • conducted by persons under the age of 18.

      This law is expected to enter into force mid-2022 and will apply to all companies registered in the Netherlands and selling or delivering goods or services to Dutch end-users. The Act introduces three main obligations on companies: 

      • a duty to investigate by means of due diligence where there is a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that goods or services to be supplied have been created using child labour; 
      • a duty to develop and enforce a plan of action in circumstances where there is a reasonable suspicion of child labour; and 
      • a duty to issue a statement to a supervising authority stating that it has complied with the above. 

      In cases of non-compliance, victims, consumers and other stakeholders will be allowed to bring complaints to the supervising authority. The Act provides that the company will then have to resolve the matter or reply to the complaint. If it fails to do so, a regulator may then determine that a company has violated the law and can either require of the company that it comply with a legally binding course of action or impose monetary penalties. If a company continuously fails to comply with the law, the director of a company can be held criminally responsible and imprisoned.75

      Although the Act does not provide for damages to be paid to direct victims or consumers as redress, it does represent a significant step in combatting and preventing child labour in corporate supply chains as it introduces mandatory requirements under an administrative and criminal regime.

Human trafficking

  1. International human rights law
    Human trafficking can be described as a migratory process in which people are transported against their will, within or across national borders for the purpose of subsequent exploitation. It is often very closely linked to the crime of forced labour76.  There are several international protocols, treaties and conventions that provide a global framework for the international effort to curtail human trafficking. The different instruments aim to set out a uniform approach to trafficking and to facilitate its implementation in national legislation77.  In light of this, the act of human trafficking has been criminalised both in international law instruments 78 and in many domestic legal systems  In addition to the criminalization of the act of trafficking, other forms of conduct are also punishable, such as attempts and accessorial participation.79 The Protocol to Prevent, Supress and Punish Trafficking in Persons supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (‘Palermo Protocol’) is the most comprehensive and universally ratified80 of the international instruments on trafficking. It defines trafficking as: 

    • the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons; 
    • by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, abuse of power or vulnerability or of giving payments or benefits to a person in control of the victim;
    • for the purpose of exploitation, which includes, prostitution or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery, the removal of organs etc.81

    The crimes of slavery and trafficking have shared elements but in the case of trafficking, perpetrators will usually exploit for profit (commercial reasons) only certain of the victim’s capacities and do not intend to assert ownership of the victims. In the case of slavery, ownership of the victim is asserted. If the exploitation in the case of trafficking is analogous to ownership and so amounts to slavery, it may be inferred from the following types of factors:

    • the length of time the victim is exploited;  
    • the perpetrator’s claims to ownership of the victim; and 
    • the absolute nature of the control the perpetrator exercises on the victim.82

    A number of treaties call on states parties to adopt laws and other measures necessary to ensure that corporations can be held liable for human trafficking, recognising that this criminal activity may be perpetrated by corporate actors83.  However these do not expressly require the liability to be ‘criminal’ in nature, instead it can also be of civil or administrative consequence84.  Although the Palermo Protocol does not expressly make mention of corporate liability, provisions of the United Nations Conventions Against Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC)85 are applicable. In particular, article 1(3) of the Palermo Protocol requires that offences criminalised under the Protocol shall be regarded as offences established in accordance with UNTOC. Article 10 of UNTOC obliges states parties to adopt the necessary measures to establish liability of legal persons but this is mandatory only to the extent that such liability is consistent with the legal principles of the states party.

    Several domestic legal systems  do in fact recognise that not only individuals but also legal actors, such as corporations, shall be held criminally liable for human trafficking offences. While this is not uniform, corporations may be held criminally liable for the following: 

    • directly recruiting, selling, or exploiting victims in other ways; 
    • transporting or providing victims with the documentation required to be moved to the place where they will be exploited; or
    • obtain other benefits (e.g., financial) from such exploitation.
  2. International criminal law

    1. Human trafficking as a crime against humanity
      Human trafficking, unlike forced labour and child labour, is expressly prohibited under the Rome Statute as a crime against humanity if it satisfies the contextual elements and fits within the definition of enslavement under article 7(2)(c). This requires the exercise of any or all powers attaching to the right of ownership and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons. It is, however, possible that the offence of trafficking is criminalised as a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute even if the requirement of ownership cannot be shown. In particular, the offence of human trafficking may be subsumed under article 7(1)(k) of the  Rome Statute prohibiting “inhumane acts of a similar character [to those previously proscribed under the article] intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health”86.   The elements of the crime are as follows: 

      1. the perpetrator inflicted great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health, by means of an inhumane act; 
      2. such act was of a character similar to any other act referred to in article 7 (1) of the Statute; 
      3. the perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the character of the act; 
      4. the conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population; 
      5. the perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population87; and 
      6. the perpetrator committed the act with intent and knowledge.
    2. The perpetrator inflicted great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health, by means of an inhumane act
      This element requires proof that the victim suffered severe mental or physical injury or suffering and that this was the result of an act or omission of the perpetrator. There is no objective threshold of severity, which should instead be assessed on a case-by-case basis.88 In the context of human trafficking, it will be necessary to show that the act of trafficking caused the severe mental or physical injury or suffering for the victim. However, in most cases that should not be difficult to establish. Victims of human trafficking  are often forced to travel in appalling conditions which risk their lives, as many times they are put in shipping containers with no ventilation and very limited, if any, food and water; they are hidden in trucks or packed into overcrowded vehicles; or are subjected to sexual violence and physical aggression89. Trafficking may also inflict severe mental stress, causing depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and self-harm/attempted suicide.90
    3. The act was of comparable gravity to other crimes under article 7
      In order to constitute an ‘inhumane act’ the conduct must be comparable in ‘character’ (or gravity)91 to other crimes against humanity. Ordinarily, this will require the conduct to represent a serious violation of customary international law or elementary norms of international human rights law92.  The types of conduct that might amount to an inhumane act have not been exhaustively enumerated. This is because article 7(1)(k) is intended to be a residual category within the Rome Statute.93 There is, nonetheless, a significant body of case-law giving useful examples of potential inhumane acts, which may include serious physical or mental injury falling short of the crime of murder94 such as mutilation95,  beatings or killings, forced disappearances96,  sniping at civilians97,  severe bodily harm, or inhumane or degrading treatment falling short of the definition of torture.98 It should be stressed that there are limits to the  scope of this category: despite recognising its residual and non-exhaustive nature, the ICC has made it clear that the conditions of article 7(1)(k) ‘must be interpreted conservatively and must not be used to expand uncritically the scope of crimes against humanity.’99  As a result, charges brought under this article may ‘compel a narrower or more restrictive interpretation than that adopted by other international jurisdictions’100 such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (‘ICTY’) or the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (‘ICTR’), where the Chambers had greater discretion in identifying other prohibited actions in that they were interpreting the much broader term, ’inhumane acts’.101
    4. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the character of the act
    5. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population
    6. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population
    7. The perpetrator committed the act with intent and knowledge
  3. Domestic law

    1. Human trafficking laws in the United States
      Trafficking Victims Protection Act (2000) (‘TVPA’)102 In the US, the TVPA criminalises “severe forms” of human trafficking, which include sex trafficking and labour trafficking. Sex trafficking will occur when a person induces by force, fraud, or coercion another person to perform a commercial sex act (a separate provision applies if the trafficked person is a minor), whilst labour trafficking will occur where a person recruits, harbours, transports, provides or obtains an individual for labour or services through the use of force, fraud or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage or slavery, commits the offence of labour trafficking.103 Under the TVPA, anyone found to have committed, attempted, or aided the commission of the crime of human trafficking may face imprisonment. In addition, the Act also imposes such liability on those who benefit financially from human trafficking ‘in reckless disregard’ for those engaged in such exploitation. Corporations shown to have acted in such fashion can be held criminally responsible and liable for the payment of monetary fines. In addition, senior office-bearers (i.e., executives, directors) who ‘recklessly disregarded’ the fact that the corporation was acting in violation of the TVPA, may also be prosecuted and face imprisonment104.  Importantly, the TVPA provides extraterritorial jurisdiction over trafficking offences committed overseas, meaning that a corporation present in the US may still be held criminally liable for corporate human trafficking even where the exploitation occurs abroad.105 Finally, victims may also bring a civil lawsuit against a company if it can be established by a preponderance of the evidence that the entity which benefitted from participating in a business venture, ‘knew or should have known’ that that venture was engaged in forced labour or sex trafficking. Therefore, a corporation will bear civil responsibility if it knew or  should have known, but proceeded in reckless disregard for the fact of its supply chain or business operations engaging in human trafficking and it benefitted from participating in such a venture.106
    2. Human trafficking laws in the United Kingdom
      Modern Slavery Act 2015 (‘MSA’)107 The MSA addresses the offences of modern slavery and human trafficking. Human trafficking is defined as:   

      • Arranging or facilitating the travel of another person. This may include recruiting, transporting, transferring, harbouring, or receiving a person, or transferring or exchanging control over a person; 
      • With a view to that person being exploited. This includes the intention to exploit that person or in the knowledge (this includes ‘ought to know’) that a third party is likely to exploit that person. ‘Exploitation’ includes slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour; sexual exploitation; removal of organs; securing services by force, threats, or deception; and securing services from children and vulnerable persons.108  

      Under the MSA, individuals found guilty of human trafficking may be liable for imprisonment, although criminal liability does not exist for corporate entities. That said, commercial organisations (i.e., companies, partnerships, charities) which (i) supply goods or services; (ii) carry on their businesses or part of their businesses in the UK; and (iii) have a total turnover of at least £36 million, must produce an annual statement setting out: 

      • the steps taken during the past financial year to ensure that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in any of its supply chains and in any part of its business; or 
      • in the event no steps have been taken, a statement declaring that to be the case. 

      This requirement imposes on large companies, an obligation to improve transparency in their supply chains. While it is mandatory to issue a statement, there is no mandatory content for the statement.109

      Human trafficking laws in Qatar 

      Human trafficking is criminalised in Qatar under three pieces of legislation110.  However, this legislation criminalises only direct involvement in human trafficking and forced labour and does not impose any obligations relation to indirect involvement through business relationships and supply chains. The definition of human trafficking is the following: 

      • whoever deals in a coercive or transactional way with a natural person;
      • including the use, transport, delivery, harbouring, reception or receipt, whether within state territories or across its national borders; 
      • by means of forced, violence, or threat thereof, or through abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power, or exploitation of a position of vulnerability or need, or through a promise to give or receive payments or benefits in exchange for obtaining the consent of a person to traffic another person; 
      • if the purpose of the transactions was exploitation in whatever form, including exploitation in acts of prostitution and all forms of sexual exploitation, exploitation of children in such acts and in pornography, begging, forced labour or the forced rendering of services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of human organs, tissues or body parts, shall be committing the crime of human trafficking.111

      Individuals committing the crime of human trafficking will face imprisonment and a fine, while Qatari law also recognises the criminal liability of corporations and legal persons for crimes of human trafficking committed by their employees or representatives in their name and for their interests112.  Management may also be personally liable if any of the offences are committed by an employee of the legal person and the management had knowledge of the crime or if the crime took place as a result of a breach of employment duties113.  Managers who are found to be personally liable may face penalties of imprisonment and a fine, whereas corporations may be ordered to: 

      • suspend their activities for a period of maximum two years; 
      • or have their licenses cancelled or revoked.114

      However, despite concerns that such crimes are being committed, no prosecutions have reportedly been brought against any exploitative employers or recruitment agencies for the crime of human trafficking.115

< RESOURCES
CORPORATE CASES >
1  ILO, Forced Labour Convention No.29 (signed 10 June 1930, entered into force 1 May 1932) 39 UNTS 55 (‘Forced Labour Convention No. 29’).
2 Belgium v Spain [1962], para. 34.
3 ILC, ‘Fourth report on peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens)’ (Seventy-first session, 31 January 2019) A/CN.4/727; paras. 102-107.
4 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended) (‘ECHR’) Article 4; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (signed 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) (‘ICCPR’) Art, 8; Slavery Convention (adopted 25 September 1926, entered into force 9 March 1927); Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts (‘Protocol II’) 1125 UNTS 609, Article 4(2)(f); African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (adopted 27 June 1981, entered into force 21 October 1986) (1982) (‘African Charter’) Article 5; Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90, 17 July 1998 (as amended) (‘Rome Statute’), Article 7(1)(c); Protocol to Prevent, Supress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (‘UNTOC’); 2237 UNTS 319, Article 3(a)-(b); Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, Article 4(2); International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966 (signed 16 December 1996, entered inro force 3 January 1976) (‘ICESCR’) Article 6(1).
5 Slavery Convention 1926, art. 5; ILO, Abolition of Forced Labour Convention 1957 No. 105, (entered into force 17 January 1959) (‘Abolition of Forced Labour Convention (No. 105)’), art. xx; ILO, Forced Labour Convention No. 29’, Article 2(1), 25.
6 ILO, Forced Labour Convention No. 29, Article. 2(1). See also Article 25: “The illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour shall be punishable as a penal offence, and it shall be an obligation on any Member ratifying this Convention to ensure that the penalties imposed by law are really adequate and are strictly enforced.”
8 International Labour Conference, 65th Session, Item III, Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, General Survey on the Reports relating to Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention (No. 105), Report III (Part 4B), 1979, p. 8.
10 Robert Steinfeld, Coercion, Contract and Free Labour in the Nineteenth Century (2001) 14.
11 ILO, What is forced labour, modern slavery and human trafficking?; Organization of American States, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, Series C, No. 148, 1 July 2006, p. 20.
12 Rome Statute, Article 7(1)(c).
13 Rome Statute, Article 7(2)(c). This definition echoes the definition of slavery in the 1926 Slavery Convention and the 1956 Supplementary Slavery Convention, see – Slavery Convention (signed 25 September 1926, entered into force 7 July 1955) 212 UNTS 17; Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery (signed 7 September 1956, entered into force 30 April 1957) 266 UNTS 3 (‘Supplementary Convention’).
14 International Criminal Court, Elements of Crimes, UN Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2 (2000), 2 November 2000 (as amended) (‘ICC Elements of Crimes’) Article 7(1)(c).
15 R Cryer, H Friman, D Robinson & E Wilmshurst (eds) An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (4th ed, CUP 2019)  (‘Cryer at al. (2019)’), p. 244.
16 See also the Slavery Convention 1926, Article 1(2) includes in ‘chattel slavery’ the capture, acquisition, sale, exchange, transport, or disposal of persons with intent to reduce them to slavery or to sell or exchange them.
18 Rome Statute, Article 7(2)(c).
19 The ICC Elements of Crimes state that: “[i]t is understood that such deprivation of liberty may, in some circumstances, include exacting forced labour or otherwise reducing a person to a servile status as defined in the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery of 1956.” See ICC Elements of Crimes, fn. 11. See also, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/06, Judgment, 8 July 2019 (‘Ntaganda Trial Judgment’), para. 952; Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al., IT-96-23 & IT-96-23/1-A, Judgment, 12 June 2002 (‘Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgment’), paras 119, 121; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 976; Prosecutor v. Sesay et al., SCSL-04-15-T, Judgment, 2 March 2009 (‘Sesay et al. Trial Judgement’) para. 160; Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T, Judgment, 18 May 2012 (‘Taylor Trial Judgment’), para. 420. See also Supplementary Convention, Article 1.
20 In Katanga, the Court made it clear that the chamber would ‘undertake a case-by-case analysis’ in order to prove the exertion of powers which might be associated with the right of ownership. See Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 976; see also Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al., IT-96-23 & IT-96-23/1-A, Judgment, 7 June 2001 (‘Kunarac et al. Judgment’), para. 117.
21 Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgment, paras 117–119; 542-543.
22 Prosecutor v. Kunarac IT-96-23-T&IT-96-23/1-T, Judgment, 22 February 2001, para 542 in Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, IT-97-25-A, Judgment, 15 March 2002 (‘Krnojelac Judgment’), para. 359.
24 US, TVPA, s 1589.
25 US, TVPA, s 1589; US Department of Justice, Human Trafficking: The fundamentals, s (65(6), p. 11.
27 Australia, Criminal Code Act 1995, Division 270, s 270.6.
28 Australia, Criminal Code Act 1995, Division 12, s 12.1-12.6.
29 Australia, Criminal Code Act 1995, Division 12, s 12.1-12.6.
30 France, Criminal Code (unofficial translation), Article 225-13, 225-14.
32  France, Criminal Code (unofficial translation), art. 121, 122.
33 France, LOI no 2017-399 du 27 mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d’ordre (unofficial translation: Law on the duty of vigilance of parent companies and ordering companies).
34 EECJ, ‘French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law’ (24 March 2017).
35 France, Criminal Code (unofficial translation), art. 121-3; see also ICLG, France Consumer Protection Laws and Regulations 2020, especially Consumer Code, art. 121-2 – 121-6, art. 121-6,122-11.
38 Leoni v. State Bar (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 609,626; Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp., supra, 35 Cal.3d, 211; accord, Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal. 4th 1254, 1267.
40 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948 UNGA Res 217 A(III) (‘UDHR’); Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1959) UNGA Res 1386 (XIV) (‘UDRC’); International Convention on the Rights of the Child (entered into force 2 September 1990) (‘CRC’); ILO Convention on worst forms of child labour No. 182 (adopted in June 1973, entered into force 1976) (‘Convention C182’); ILO, Minimum Age Convention (adopted 27 June 1973) (‘Convention C138,’); African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (adopted 11 July 1990, entered into force 29 November 1999) OAU Doc CAB/LEG/24.9/49; European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights (adopted 25 January 1996; entered into force 1 July 2000) (‘CETS No. 160’).
44 See for example the CRC, art. 32 and the African Charter, art 15.
45 Convention C138, art. 2(3)-(4).
46 Convention C138, art. 3(1).
47 Convention C138, art. 3(2).
48 Additional Protocol I, art. 77, para. 2.
49  Additional Protocol II, art. 4, para. 3(c).
50 CRC, art. 38(2)-(3).
56 Lubanga Trial Judgment, para. 609; see Additional Protocol I, art. 77(2); in conjunction with article 3 which specifies that the Conventions and the Protocol apply during armed conflict, ‘[w]ithout prejudice to the provisions which are applicable at all times’. Common article 2 to the Geneva Conventions similarly implies that certain provisions of the Geneva Conventions (and through article 1 para 3 Add. Prot. I also of Add Prot. II) must be ‘implemented in peacetime’; CRC, art. 38 and Optional Protocol to the Convention do not contain any restriction of the prohibition of recruitment of children to times of armed conflict.
57 Although in IHL rules, this crime can only be found in the context of a non-international armed conflict, see Additional Protocol II, art. 4 para 3(c), the Rome Statute remedies this discrepancy by criminalising such act in both cases.
59 See Additional Protocol I, art. 77(2); Lubanga Trial Judgment, para. 627.
61 1998 ILC Draft Statute 25 (fn. 12 to art. 5, War Crimes, B (t) Option 2); Brima et al. Trial Judgment, para. 737; Lubanga Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, paras. 262-263; Katanga Decision on the Confirmation of the Charges, para. 250; Katanga Trial Judgment, para. 1045.
62 W Schabas, Commentary 2016, p. 291.
63 Lubanga Appeal Judgment, paras. 198, 207-262.
64 US, TVPA.
65 US, TVPA, s 1589.
66 US, TVPA, s 1589; US Department of Justice, Human Trafficking: The fundamentals 2017, 65(6), pp. 10-11.
67 US, TVPA, s 1589; US Department of Justice, Human Trafficking: The fundamentals 2017, 65(6), p. 11.
69 Code du Travail (Code of Employment – unofficial translation) art R.234-1, 234-5 (France).
70 Code pénal (Penal Code) arts 225-7, 225-12-1, 227-23 (2005) (France) (Penal Code France).
71  loi n° 2017-399 du 27 Mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d’ordre (‘Law on the duty of vigilance of parent companies and ordering companies’ unofficial translation) (France).
72 ECCJ ‘French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law’ (24 March 2017).
73 Wet Zorgplicht Kinderarbeid, (‘Act on the introduction of a duty of care to prevent the delivery of goods and services that have been established with the help of child labour’ unofficial translation) (24 October 2019) (Netherlands)  (‘The Child Labour Due diligence Act Netherlands’).
75 The Child Labour Due Diligence Act Netherlands, arts. 7-9.
77 UNGA Res 55/25, Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto, (UNTOC) Annex II Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (‘Palermo Protocol’); UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights; ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (1998); Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, (signed 16 May 2005, entered into force 01 February 2008) CETS 197 (‘CAAT (No. 197)’); Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (signed 18 December 1979, entered into force 3 September 1981) 1249 UNTS 13,  art. 6.
82 Prosecutor v Kunarac et al., IT-96-23, Trial Judgment, 22 February 2001, para 542. See also ILO Indicators.
83 See CAAT (No. 197) art. 22.
84 CAAT (No. 197), arts. 18-23; UNTOC, art. 10.
86 Aparimita Pratap and Varsha Maria Koshy, Modern Day Slavery & Trafficking Under the Rome Statute, Cambridge International Law Journal (24 November 2018).
87 ICC Elements of Crimes, art 7(1)(k).
88 Cryer, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (3rd ed, CUP 2015) 261; Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, IT-95-14/2-A, Appeals Judgment, 17 December 2004, para. 117.
89 Luc Cohens, NBC News, ‘94 migrants found packed in ‘overcrowded’ truck bound for Mexico-US border’ NBC News (24 July 2013).
90 Tom Obokata, ‘Trafficking of Human Beings as a Crime against Humanity: Some Implications for the International Legal System’ (2005) vol 54, No. 2, 451; Sukran Altun et al., ‘Mental health and human trafficking: responding to survivors’ needs’ (1 February 2017).
91 ICC Elements of Crimes, art 7(1)(k).
92 Katanga & Chui, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, para. 448.
93 Muthaura et al., Decision on Confirmation of Charges, para 269.
94 Blaśkić Trial Judgment, para. 239.
95  Muthaura et al. Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, paras 270-3.
96 Kvočka et al. Trial Judgment, para. 208.
97 Prosecutor v. Galić, IT-98-29-A, Judgment, 30 November 2006, para. 158.
98 Ongwen Decision on Confirmation of Charges, para 87; Brima et al. Appeal Judgment, para 201; Taylor Trial Judgment, paras 424-8; Akayesu, Trial Judgement,  paras 685-697; Tadić Trial Judgment, para 730; The Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić, IT-95-14, Judgment, 3 March 2000, para 239; Kvočka et al., Trial Judgment , para 209; Delalić et al. Trial Judgment, paras. 554-558.
99 Muthaura et al. Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, para. 269.
100 W Schabas, Commentary 2016, p. 207.
101 W Schabas, Commentary 2016, p. 207.
102 TVPA, Public Law 106-386, 106th Congress and Reauthortization Acts of 2003, 2005, 2008, 2013, 2018 (US).
103 TVPA, s 103 (8) (US).
107 Modern Slavery Act 2015 (‘MSA 2015’) (UK).
108 MSA 2015, section 2, 3.
109 UK Parliament, House of Lords, Modern Slavery Bill Column 1415 (23 February 2015).
110 Qatar, Law No.15 of 2011 on Combatting Human Trafficking; Law No. 4 of 2009 (‘Trafficking Law’), Regarding Regulation of Expatriates’ Entry, Departure, Residence and Sponsorship (‘Kafala Law’); and the Labour Law (Law No.14) of 2004 (‘Labour Law’).
111 Trafficking Law, art 2.
112 Trafficking Law, art 22.
113 Trafficking Law, art 22.
114 Trafficking Law, art 22.
115 US Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report: Qatar (2020).