A/HRC/31/58 Committee has similarly asked States to establish a fund for the compensation of victims for cases in which compensation cannot be obtained from the perpetrator.61 (b) Sex offender registration 66. Although the majority of child sexual exploiters are not preferential offenders, most responses have focused on the latter. A common measure has been the adoption of sex offender registers or databases, which have in some cases included all types of sex offenders. The rationale behind such policies is based on research on the recidivism of different types of sex offenders, which tends to increase with the passage of time. 62 As of 2014, 19 States or entities63 had enacted sex offender registration laws.64 The registers can also come with provisions requiring registered sex offenders to notify competent authorities about their travels domestically and abroad. 67. The use of such registers and the sharing of information with other law enforcement agencies abroad can be a vital tool to prevent child sexual exploiters from reoffending elsewhere. There have been other initiatives to prevent offenders from hiding their criminal record and taking up employment that involves contact with children. For example, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has developed the International Child Protection Certificate, which is a criminal records check against police and intelligence databases in the United Kingdom that reveals any convictions or reasons why someone should not work with children. 65 It is very useful for overseas schools and other child-focused organizations that seek to employ a British national. 68. At the international level, the Green Notice system established by INTERPOL provides warnings and criminal intelligence about persons who have committed criminal offences and are likely to repeat the crimes in other countries. 66 It is an essential border control tool that must be embraced and used effectively by member countries of INTERPOL. The Special Rapporteur invites member countries and law enforcement agencies to study the need for and feasibility of creating a specific notice for offenders convicted of sexual abuse and exploitation of children. 69. The growing use of sex offender registers has nonetheless been criticized in some cases. Provisions such as residency restrictions are particular controversial and have not proved to prevent offending.67 Moreover, there is a particular danger when the registry is made publicly accessible as it can encourage vigilantism.68 When offenders are minors, there is the risk that they will be placed on a sex offender register, which can last for life, thus hampering any rehabilitation and reintegration. 69 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 See CRC/C/OPSC/THA/CO/1; CRC/C/OPSC/USA/CO/1; CRC/C/OPSC/EGY/CO/1. United States Department of Justice, “Sex Offender Management Assessment and Planning Initiative”, p. 101. Argentina, Australia, Bermuda, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Jamaica, Jersey, Kenya, Maldives, Malta, Pitcairn Islands, South Africa, Republic of Korea, Taiwan, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, United States. SMART Office of Sex Offending Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking, “Global Overview of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Systems”, 2014. See www.acro.police.uk/icpc/. See www.interpol.int/Crime-areas/Crimes-against-children/Sex-offenders. Human Rights Watch, No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the US, 2007. Kate Hynes, “The Cost of Fear: An Analysis of Sex Offender Registration, Community Notification, and Civil Commitment Laws in the United States and the United Kingdom”, Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs, vol. 2, No. 2 (2013). Human Rights Watch, “Raised on the Registry: The Irreparable Harm of Placing Children on Sex Offender Registries in the US”, 2013. 17