Netherlands sends human trafficking victims back to Italy despite risk of repeated exploitation

Because of suspicions of false declarations the Dutch former State Secretary of Justice and Security adjusted the temporary residence permit for human trafficking victims in 2019. Research by Lost in Europe now shows that this adjustment is unfounded. “The claim that there are many false declarations among human trafficking victims in The Netherlands is not true”, says Hendrik van der Veen, from the Alien Police. According to legal experts the Netherlands violates with the adjustment European law.

Rob Kelder, care coordinator for human trafficking at Fier, the Dutch national expertise and treatment center in the field of violence in dependent relationships, has hundreds of cases of specifically people from Nigeria who became human trafficking victims in Europe. In 2015 he gave aid to a 25-years old woman from Nigeria, who had just arrived in the Netherlands. “She has been wandering through European countries for several years, looking for money to pay back her trafficker. In 2010 she crossed from Libya to Italy for which she had a debt. She needed to pay back a total of 50.000 Euro. The human trafficker forced her into sex work”, Kelder explains. “After that she went to Switzerland, France and the Netherlands. Here she felt safe enough to report her story to the Dutch police in 2016. But the authorities did not believe her.”

Kelder: “She mentioned the names of streets in the European cities where she was exploited, but police could not find those names on the maps. So, I was told by the IND (Immigration and Naturalization Service) that she is lying.” After this Rob Kelder sat down with her behind a computer and let her pronounce the street names which he interpreted phonetically. “Sometimes things can go wrong in translation. So we looked through Street View together and she was able to point out the specific bar in the street where she was forced to perform sex work. In fact, she even had a picture of herself on the street in Switzerland, which corresponded with what we saw via Street View.” Kelder then got in touch with a local Swiss organization who verified that the street was known as a place where people doing sex work are exploited.

But again, the woman was not believed. Because she was smiling in the photo on the street in question, the IND stood by their decision. “She is smiling,” they said. “So there is not enough evidence of human trafficking.”

False reports

Ankie Broekers-Knol, former State Secretary of asylum at the department of Justice and Security in The Netherlands, assumed that many victims of human trafficking lie during their filed police reports. Her claim followed after an article from Dutch newspaper NRC, who wrote in early 2019 that the number of Dublin claimants who reported to be human trafficking victims was growing rapidly. But how concrete are the facts on the basis of which Broekers-Knol claimed that many false reports have been made by asylum seekers with a Dublin claim?

Hendrik van der Veen, team leader Migration Crime and Human Trafficking at AVIM (Alien Police), states that based on research the claim that there are many false declarations among human trafficking victims in The Netherlands is not true. “An earlier WODC research from 2013 already showed that there are no indicators for false declarations. On top of that, an internal police report concluded that no evidence was found for these assumptions” says Van der Veen.

Dublin claimants are asylum seekers who are registered in a certain European country, but started their asylum procedure in a second European country, while according to Dublin the first European country is responsible for their procedure. Broekers-Knol suspected that the reason for the increase of this number was because it was considered an easy way to obtain a (temporary) asylum permit, she wrote to the Second Chamber in July 2019. Further research was requested, but the WODC (Research and Documentation Centre) responded that it was not possible to conduct this study, because of privacy regulations. Nevertheless, Broekers-Knol implemented new measures in the Summer of 2019.

The new measure separates non-Dublin claimants from Dublin claimants. Non-Dublin claimants are still granted a temporary residence status of three months in the Netherlands, for them to consider reporting to the police. If they do so, they are granted the B8/3 scheme, which is valid as long as the investigation and prosecution is in progress.

But for Dublin claimants, the rules have changed. They can still file a report, but the police and Prosecutor’s Office have to decide on whether there is a case in the Netherlands. When there is no case in the Netherlands they are ordered to return to the first European country that according to Dublin is responsible. “Much of the exploitation in Europe has taken place in Italy, which means that if the victim has been registered there, he can be sent back to the member state where he was exploited”, says asylum lawyer Judith Pieters. The Netherlands trusts that they will be received properly in that country. The Dublin Regulation establishes that all European Member States are equal in this, yet this principle pinches when it comes to exploitation in Italy.

Detection indicators

“Since early 2019, there has been a substantial increase in the number of foreign nationals, especially Dublin claimants, who want to report human trafficking (..). In the recent period, several organizations have suspected that the residence permit scheme for human trafficking is being used improperly by some,” Ankie Broekers-Knol wrote in the same letter of July 2019 to the Second Chamber. It is not substantiated which organizations these are. What was the former state secretary basing this on? And has the new approach solved the problem?

“A pattern that emerges is that in some reports detection indicators are missing, such as house and telephone numbers,” explains the national officer for human trafficking of the Prosecutor’s Office Warner ten Kate. It remains a collaborative effort between the Prosecutor’s Office, IND and the Aliens Police, where insiders say there is still substantive discussion about the approach.

According to Van der Veen, the focus in the reports should focus more on the story of the victim of human trafficking rather than on the link between the report and residence. “Even if an investigation from the Prosecution’s Office cannot take place, there sure are elements in their story that make it verifiable. Especially with a report if you only have to check whether it has detection indicators. That approach is not suitable for determining whether or not the offence has taken place. It would be good to adopt the principle that these stories are true unless the contrary can be demonstrated. After all, that is what we do with all other criminal offenses”, Van der Veen explains.

“In certain circumstances, these kinds of cases are not very common, we also see that the people are really victims, but that there are detection indicators missing, while we can prove that the criminals or organizations exist. In those cases we can report to the IND that there are special grounds for allowing someone to stay in the Netherlands. This is ultimately the IND’s decision,” says Ten Kate.

The woman from Nigeria who was not believed by the authorities left with an unknown destination (MOB), one and a half years after filing her report. Kelder is no longer in touch with her. “For these asylum seekers, once it is assumed they are lying, there is no hope. Even if evidence is presented, the authorities tend not to give them credit. They are already 3-0 behind on arrival and have to prove themselves extra to be trusted”, says Kelder.

Fear of the trafficker

Like this woman from Nigeria, more Dublin claimants who are ordered to leave the Netherlands are not eager to go back to Italy. According to calculations from the IOM (International Organization for Migration), between 2014 and 2017 the number of potential human trafficking victims landing on Italian shores increased nearly by 600 percent. “Back then, many human trafficking networks from Nigeria exploited the Italian protection system, registering the victims as asylum seekers while continuing to exploit them”, says Gianfranco Della Valle from Numero Verde Antitratta, the Italian anti-trafficking helpline. “In that sense, we have failed to protect them.”

“The two main reasons why victims of human trafficking do not want to return from the Netherlands to Italy are fear of their traffickers because of the lack of confidence in the Italian authorities’ ability to protect them”, says Joan van Geel, who investigated Dublin claimants in Amsterdam on behalf of the Taskforce Undocumented Persons in Amsterdam.

Via a FOIA request Lost in Europe received internal emails from COA (the Dutch Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers). The communication between employees in the period of February 2017 until January 2020 shows the worries of COA employees on Nigerian asylum seekers who are (suspected) victims of human trafficking. Among these 247 asylum seekers from Nigeria in Dutch shelters, at least 137 had been in Italy.

The communication about the victims states that they are terrified. Many of them left Italy for the Netherlands looking to escape their exploiters, while others were also exploited in the Netherlands. The victims are terrified because they have an outstanding debt, running into tens of thousands of euros, with the human traffickers who helped them to cross Europe. The human traffickers force them to repay them through forced sex work or drug dealing. They receive death threats through their phone if they do not repay them. A woman showed the COA staff Whatsapp messages she received from an Italian number which said: “Don’t think you can run away from me. I will make sure to kill you and wipe away your entire family in Nigeria. Better come and pay me the money or else I’ll catch you anywhere you are.”

Dutch policy in conflict with EU law

Back to the measurements of Broekers-Knol in 2019. How does this work in the European context? Can the Netherlands implement its measures within the applicable European agreements? And, was the B8/3 residence permit scheme allowed to be changed just like that without a vote from the Second Parliament?

The previous State Secretary of Justice and Security was able to do so because the regulation is laid down in policy, the Aliens Circular, and not in legislation. But according to the National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings, Herman Bolhaar, this is controversial because it involves important rights for victims of human trafficking. “The Court of Justice of the European Union is currently looking into this. The changes for Dublin claimants have no basis in law, but are purely policy provisions. International treaties require, also from the Dutch government, a proactive attitude in the protection of victims.”

Lawyer Rosa Vahl investigated the B8/3 regulation and concluded that the recent adaptation violates European legislation. Countries in the EU have to comply with European directives. They can also transpose these directives into national legislation and make adjustments to it. This is only allowed if the countries comply with a number of requirements. According to Vahl, the recent adaptation of the B8/3 regulation does not meet these requirements.

“With only one letter to the parliament the state secretary undid an essential policy to protect  the rights of human trafficking victims”, Vahl explains. According to Vahl, the change in the B8/3 arrangement violates Directives 2011/36/EU and 2004/81/EC. “There is now a distinction between victims with and without a Dublin status. Dutch policy is only protecting the ones without a Dublin claim. It is now more focused on prosecuting perpetrators, instead of protecting all victims”, she continues.

An important reason for the previous state secretary to adjust the B8 scheme was because more reports were coming in, causing increasing waiting times at the police, and because there were concerns about false reports. “The solution to combat ‘false reports’ is therefore disproportionate because too many victims are now prevented from making use of their rights. It causes several human rights to be jeopardized”, Vahl concludes.

Gerrie Lodder, lecturer and researcher at Leiden University, agrees that the way in which Directive 2004/81/EC is implemented in the Aliens Act implementation guidelines is not correct. “The elaboration of the right to a reflection period when filing a report is only explained in the Aliens Act implementation guidelines. This is not a law but policy. The fact that the Netherlands has not done so in the Aliens Act or the Aliens Decree is contrary to how you should apply EU directives.”

The National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings also argues that the Dutch policy is going through an opposite development than what international institutions are calling for. “Years ago, the European Commission called for additional criteria and thresholds that are not in the Directive to be removed and for victims to be offered more security”, the National Rapporteur stated.

Lack of monitoring victims

When looking at the numbers one thing stands out: Nigeria is the most common nationality among victims of human trafficking in the Netherlands. Many of these victims also have a Dublin indication. This is evident from the National Rapporteur’s annual Victim Monitor over the period from 2016-2020.

But how many registered victims of human trafficking with a Nigerian nationality and a Dublin claim are we actually looking at? The journalists of Lost in Europe made inquiries at the National Police, the Prosecutor’s Office, CoMensha, the IND (Immigration and Naturalization Service) and the Italian Ministry of Interior.

The authorities handle the data differently. CoMensha, the coordination centre against human trafficking, receives all notifications of suspected victims of human trafficking. Law enforcement agencies are required to report this to CoMensha. The Prosecuter’s Office does not register how many Nigerian victims also have a Dublin claim. They only keep track of the general percentage of Dublin claimants on the total number of cases.

Between 2018 and 2021, in total 975 victims were notified to CoMensha who have filed a B8-report and are also in their asylum procedure. Out of these, 621 have the Nigerian nationality. The vast majority has a Dublin claim, 551 of the 621 Nigerian asylum seekers.

The National Police shared the numbers from the Prosecutor’s Office, who manually keeps track of how many cases they review. Between 2018 and 2021, the Prosecutor’s Office had a total of 1311 cases of asylum seekers who filed a report for human trafficking. Amongst them were 758 people with a Nigerian nationality. However, these are only cases reviewed by the national Prosecutor’s Office. Numbers of cases with clues for investigation that were sent to regional departments, are missing. The Prosecutor’s Office cannot indicate how many of these cases from Nigerian asylum seekers also had a Dublin claim. But of all 1311 cases in the previous four years, 79 percent were Dublin claimants.

Out of all 1311 cases the Prosecutor’s Office shared 175 cases with foreign countries. The vast majority of these were shared with Italian authorities, because they had possible clues for investigation of human trafficking in that country.

The IND could not share data on the number of asylum seekers with a Nigerian nationality who were in the process of the B8 scheme or how many Nigerian asylum seekers reported to be victims of human trafficking and had to return to Italy. The IND does keep track of the total number of Nigerian asylum seekers that need to return to Italy. Between 2018 and 2021, the IND requested Italy 2.680 times to accept a Dublin transfer of a Nigerian asylum seeker. Of this number, Italy accepted about 36 percent, which is 870 times.

Lost in Europe asked the same question to Italy but they provided different numbers. Between 2018 and 2021 Italy would have received 2,334 the request from the Netherlands to receive a Nigerian asylum seeker, of which Italy would have accepted 1,883. Of these, only 293 asylum seekers with a Nigerian nationality would have actually been transferred. When asked how many victims of human trafficking Italy receives from the Netherlands, the Italian Ministry of Interior replied that they do not keep track of this.

Because people wander through Europe it is hard to keep track of their whereabouts, Kelder says. “From most of them I hear nothing, they disappear from the radar. A few still send a message now and then. A Nigerian man, for example. According to the procedure, the Netherlands states in his file that he is a victim of human trafficking. Surely, then, Italy is supposed to offer protection. But after his arrival he video called me from the airport in Italy. He showed me a document that was pressed into his hands upon arrival. It said: you must leave the country within eight days. After that he also disappeared from me, I have no contact with him.”

Lack of communication

The example of the Nigerian man who talked with Kelder is not unique. A recent study by the University of Venice (2021) on human trafficking networks in Italy shows that there is no check on whether there is evidence of trafficking when a Dublin claimant arrives at an Italian airport, usually Milan, Rome or Venice. According to the researchers, it is not mandatory for the Network against Human Trafficking or the Italian Helpline against Human Trafficking to offer protection. And this is despite the fact that member states are obliged to offer protection under the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Persons of the Council of Europe.

The study shows that victims of human trafficking who return to Italy because of the Dublin claim are not put in touch with the Italian Network Against Human Trafficking at the airports. “No specific mechanism is in place to ensure the protection of the people”, states the report.

Under the Dublin Regulation, member states are required to provide each other with information on any special needs to ensure the protection of vulnerable asylum seekers through the Dublinet platform. But according to the research of the University of Venice, it is not clear to what extent the information is shared and to whom.

The Italian Dublin Unit, which is responsible for Dublin transfers to and from Italy and is subject to the Ministry of Interior, does not communicate directly with the Network Against Human Trafficking. Employees of the Network Against Human Trafficking indicate in the report that there is no direct cooperation with the Dublin Unit. Other anti-trafficking projects also do not cooperate with the Dublin Unit.

A senior officer working for the competent Prefecture at the airport of Milan Malpensa, one of the three main hubs for Dublin claimants, declares that she does not have access to DubliNet. This mean she does not receive information if the returned Dublin claimant is also a victim of human trafficking. “But”, she admits, “in other Prefectures it might be different”. Lost in Europe therefore asked the two main Italian airports where Dublin claimants arrive, but they did not provide an answer. According to the Prefecture who works with the airport of Milan, “the frontier police at the airport might have that information”. But according to the frontier police the airport of Milan, this is not their responsibility, but the Dublin Unit of the Italian Ministry of Interior. The frontier police of the two other important airports, Rome and Venice, did not react to our questions.

The lack of communication is striking. The Dutch Repatriation and Departure Service (DT&V) declares that they share information with the responsible Member States about returned asylum seekers with a Dublin claim who have filed a report on human trafficking in the Netherlands. The Netherlands also has a special police and Prosecutor’s office in Rome. According to Warner ten Kate there is one public prosecutor at the liaison in Rome who directly communicates with the Italian police. “In cases with concrete detection indicators, we forward it to our liaison in Rome. They pass it on to the Italian police. As a result, about ten cases have already been successful.”

While the communication between the Dutch and Italian police seems to go well when there are concrete detection indicators, things to wrong when a victim of human trafficking has to return to Italy because those indicators are missing. As has been mentioned, the Italian Ministry of Interior do not keep track of how many returned Dublin claimants have reported in the Netherlands on being victims of human trafficking. Other Italian authorities also do not have the number of trafficking victims with Dublin claims ready. Even the Numero Verde Antitratta, the Italian helpline against human trafficking, could not share this information. “We do not keep track of this information because for us it’s irrelevant. This is a matter for the international protection system, not ours”, explains Gianfraco Della Valle.

Crossborder cooperation in the EU

Because of the lack of communication between authorities, NGOs jump into this gap to share bilateral information. Since 2019 Numero Verde Antitratta reports being contacted on two occasions by Dutch organizations to announce the arrival of victims of trafficking in Italy.

One of the two cases involves a Nigerian family. Giuseppina di Bari, coordinator of a local anti-trafficking service: “A man and a pregnant woman with their child arrive in Venice Airport in May 2021. Upon their arrival in Italy, the woman and the child were given a temporary shelter, but the man wasn’t. Therefore they contacted the Dutch organization Recht in Zicht from Amsterdam which provides legal advice to human trafficking victims. Recht in Zicht then called Numero Verde Antitratta, which signaled their presence to us.” According to Di Bari, the woman had arrived in Italy in 2016 but was shortly after forced to perform sex work. In September 2020 she arrived in the Netherlands where she filed a report on being a victim of human trafficking, but because of the adjustment in the B8/3 arrangement she was forced to return to Italy.

Di Bari notices that there was no formal communication. “If it weren’t for the initiative of the family and Recht in Zicht, we wouldn’t have noticed the presence of these victims of trafficking”. Eventually, the family got shelter in Italy, however, after just a few weeks, the family already disappeared.

Because of the apparent gaps, NGOs feel the need to establish initiatives, such as the Return Assistance Network (T-DAN) which is part of a European Commission funded project called SISA. This network comprises of ten European organizations with access to over 200 emergency housing solutions throughout Italy to support victims of human trafficking affected by Dublin returns. “We found that bureaucratic delays in communication between Germany and Italy would hinder access to official support by the government. Therefore T-DAN aims to bridge the gap by providing shelter to clients in safe housing and immediate support in the return country,” says Rawan Shrum, initiator of the SISA Project.

Another initiative on a European scale aiming to improve cross-border collaboration is the European funded project TIATAS (Transnational Initiative Against Trafficking in the Context of European Asylum Systems). Project manager Sabine Bauer-Amin, working for the German International Rescue Committee (IRC), started the project in January 2022. “In some countries, there isn’t even a national referral mechanism for victims of human trafficking. Our goal is to increase cooperation across different countries, such as by developing an international database of involved NGOs”, says Bauer-Amin.

Trust in Italy?

What happens to victims of human trafficking when they are forced to return to the country they were exploited? In all Dublin claims, there must be an interstate trust. This means that Member States have confidence in each other and that the rights of asylum seekers are protected as set out in the Refugee Convention and other regulations. But exceptions can be made. In 2011 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the interstate trust in the Greek asylum procedure is lacking because of systematic deficiencies in the asylum system. So from that decision Dublin claimants could not be returned to Greece.

Upon Italy, there are doubts about this interstate trust. A number of asylum lawyers have argued in court cases that Italy cannot provide adequate reception for Dublin claimants. So far, these court cases are without success. Asylum lawyer Marion Pals has represented many Nigerian clients with a Dublin claim in Italy. “The situation is shocking. It is not fair. Not only for trafficking victims, but for all Dublin claimants. I’ve been litigating in the Dutch courts for six years now. But judges don’t see the concerns.”

Lawyer Judith Pieters agrees with Pals. “The reality for these asylum seekers who have been trafficked is totally different. Most of the exploitation has taken place in Italy. These victims are in their full right to not return to a country where they have been exploited. And where nobody protects that person. This problem has been intensified since the Netherlands has changed the B8/3 arrangement in 2019.”

According to Warner ten Kate, mutual trust with Italy should be assumed. “Within the EU we have agreed that we trust each other’s legal system. So someone who reports human trafficking in Italy will also be taken care of properly in Italy. But if we cannot do anything in the Netherlands in terms of investigation, Italy will often not be able to do anything for a Dublin claimant either, because detection indicators are missing.”

For this investigation Lost in Europe spoke with 9 Dutch organizations that all confirmed they have been dealing with a large number of Nigerian trafficking victims who have a Dublin claim Italy, and had to return.

The 29-year old Kayode (not his real name), came as an asylum seeker from Nigeria via Italy to the Netherlands. Kayode arrived in 2018 in Italy where he ended up in the wrong hands. There he was forced into sex work to repay his debt for crossing the Mediterranean Sea. One day, his human trafficker put him in a van blindfolded. The human trafficker dropped him off in Amsterdam and handed him over to another human trafficker. He was put in a small room, next to other young men. He was chained up and forced to perform sex work every day.

Subsequently he managed to escape in May 2019 and got in contact with the EMP (Expertise Centre for Human Trafficking and (Youth) Prostitution), which is part of Lumens in Eindhoven. Awatief Trouk, care coordinator at the EMP: “We helped him with a bed, bath and bread, and a lawyer. The waiting list to report to the police was very long. It is bizarre that it took nine months before it was his turn. But that was a disappointing experience. He knew street names where he had been, but not the exact house number. That was because he was chained up in that little room. In the end the police couldn’t do anything with his report, because they didn’t have enough clues for investigation.”

Kayode was told by the Dutch authorities to return to Italy because of his Dublin claim. But he did not want to go there because of his fear of the human trafficking network. He decided to leave with an unknown destination. According to Awatief Trouk, this is only one example out of dozens. EMP knows several cases of Nigerian asylum seekers who became victims of human trafficking in Italy and were in the risk of being sent back. “But nobody wants to return to Italy. The fear is too big.”

Also at SHOP, the knowledge and expertise center on sex work and human trafficking based in the Hague, the cases are familiar. Care coordinator Heady Soe-Agnie has had three Nigerian men who, since the B8/3 regulation was adjusted, had to return to Italy. “One of my clients received a letter from AVIM (Alien Police) which he had to hand over to the Italian police. He called me when he arrived in Italy. He wanted to report the crime to the Italian police. But they did nothing for him. He then went back to the Netherlands, and knocked on our door again. Where he is now, is unknown. My guess is that he is living here undocumented.”

Lisa Elsenburg of Here to Support tells about a young Nigerian girl. “She was pregnant and had fled from Italy because she was forced to work there as a sex worker. She had pictures of herself of her legs in plaster, her face swollen and blue and her front tooth knocked out. The traffickers had done this because she refused to do what they asked. Here in the Netherlands she was told she had to return to Italy, where all of this happened. And that she had to file the report there. Running into her human traffickers in Italy was her worst nightmare. She did not want to return. She now lives undocumented in the Netherlands.”

Chela Lemmens, legal consultant to undocumented migrants at the Dutch Refugee Council, tells about a Nigerian woman who was forced to work as a sex worker in Italy. “In the Netherlands she wanted to report her traffickers, but there was a long waiting list at the police. It took so long that she decided to return to Italy.” There she applied for a casi speciali, a temporary residence permit of 6 months for victims of human trafficking, which is still in process.

Recht in Zicht is currently writing a report on victims of human trafficking with a Nigerian nationality who have a Dublin claim Italy. “We want to highlight the story of this large group of clients. Especially because the ones with a Dublin claim no longer receive protection after the B8/3 scheme changed”, says Meeuw Kollen, legal case manager. The research is set to be finished in mid-June 2022. “We try to keep in touch with our clients who have returned to Italy. Those who return, to our knowledge, do not receive shelter and end up on the streets. We are concerned that they end up in the network of their trafficker.”