A/HRC/41/46 programmes can play an important role in tailoring anti-trafficking services to meet the needs and desires of each person concerned.7 2. International and national legal frameworks applicable to social inclusion of trafficked persons 10. State obligations, in relation to trafficking in persons, that stem from international instruments often intersect and overlap both with the right to remedy and with due diligence obligations. For example, breach of international law obligations gives rise to the right to remedy for victims, and may also comprise part of States’ due diligence obligations, including their prevention obligations. 8 The prevention arm of a State’s due diligence obligation requires it to address both potential trafficking victims and risks of retrafficking, and requires that initiatives be “targeted to those most at risk of trafficking in persons”. 9 This obligation includes measures relating to social inclusion, including “action to address the wider, more systemic processes or root causes that contribute to trafficking in persons, such as inequality, restrictive immigration policies, and unfair labour conditions, particularly for migrant workers”.10 The provision of “livelihood activities” is also part of this requirement.11 11. States have an obligation to ensure a right to remedy for victims of human rights violations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights first recognized the right to an effective remedy for acts violating the fundamental rights granted by the constitution or by law (art. 8). Under international law, this obligation extends to situations based directly on acts or omissions committed either by State actors or by actors whose actions are attributable to the State, and to situations where the State has failed to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate or punish abuses by non-State actors. 12 This approach requires States to adopt a gender-sensitive approach in all aspects of the right to remedy. 13 Relevant in this regard is the ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, which constitutes a landmark decision in the field of State responsibility and due diligence: for the first time, a human rights court found that States had due diligence obligations to respond to violence against women by private actors, referring extensively to the due diligence standard. 14 This standard was strengthened by the criteria adopted by the same Court in Fazenda Brasil Verde v. Brazil, in which the Court referred to the existence of exceptional due diligence in respect of victims in particular situations of vulnerability (see para. 364), adopting the criteria of the European Court of Human Rights in Siliadin v. France and Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia to argue that this special due diligence standard applies to cases in which the integrity of the person is at risk. This standard implies a positive obligation to investigate and sanction any act aimed at keeping a person in a situation of slavery, servitude or forced work. Thus, the Court understood that the obligation to investigate and punish trafficking in persons was an obligation ex officio and that the requirement of due diligence was urgent in cases where there was the possibility of rescuing persons.15 12. According to the basic principles on the right to an effective remedy for victims of trafficking in persons, the right to remedy should include “restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition”16 and reflect “a victim-centred 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Submission to the Special Rapporteur from the NEXUS Institute. See also Inter-Agency Coordination Group against Trafficking in Persons, “A toolkit for guidance in designing and evaluating countertrafficking programmes”. A/70/260, para. 19. Ibid., para. 48. Ibid., para. 20. Ibid., para. 21. A/HRC/36/43, para. 12. A/HRC/35/23, para. 118 (b). Judgment of 16 November 2009. Judgment of 20 October 2016. A/69/269, para. 2. 5