Case No. UKUT-00226-(IAC)
Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber

Case No. UKUT-00226-(IAC)

Fecha: 20-Ene-2016

Amatewan

( supra ) As this decision demonstrates, the effect of our analysis and conclusions above is that, in substance, the Appellant now has the status of trafficking victim. In this particular case, this is very much a current and enduring status. (61) The unlawful decisions of the Authority give rise to another significant consequence. By Article 10(2) of the Trafficking Convention , victims of trafficking shall not be removed from the territory of the state concerned until the process enshrined in Article 18 has been completed and the victim has received the assistance provided for in Article 12(1) and (2). In accordance with the latter provisions, a lawful trafficking decision would have entitled the Appellant to a range of services and benefits including appropriate accommodation, psychological support, counselling and legal advice. Recognition of and provision for his specific “ safety and protection needs ” would also have been required. (62) Further , Article 18 of the Convention would have been triggered. This provides, under the rubric “Criminalisation of Trafficking in Human Beings”: “ Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences the conduct contained in Article 4 of this Convention, when committed intentionally. ” Article 10(2) , in somewhat infelicitous language, describes this as an “ identification process as victim of an offence ”. We construe this as a clear reference to the universally recognised criminal law processes of investigatio n, prosecution and punishment. We would add that, i n this respect, a distinction is to be made between the status of trafficking victim and the status of victim of a criminal offence. (63) Accordingly, by virtue of Article 10(2) of the Convention, there exists, by reason of our condemnation in law of the decisions of the Authority, a prohibition against removing the Appellant from the United Kingdom at this point in time. The Secretary of State’s removal decision is, in consequence , unlawful. Notably, in