A/HRC/26/37 response to trafficking. The mandate has also been very clear that the obligations of States extend beyond those that relate immediately to victims. For example, in relation to the responses of the criminal justice system, the Special Rapporteur has confirmed the obligation on all States to investigate and prosecute trafficking, as well as the obligation to protect the rights of suspects and the right to a fair trial.17 In their country mission reports, the mandate holders have also highlighted the link between corruption and trafficking, noting that States are required to act in preventing such corruption and dealing with it once it is uncovered.18 More broadly, and in particular during the tenure of the current mandate holder, the mandate has examined the implications of the legal obligation on States to take steps to prevent trafficking, detailing actions that should be taken within the framework of a human rights approach (A/HRC/10/16, paras. 45–47). VIII. Challenges 66. The work of the mandate has confirmed that the problem of human trafficking continues to be endemic in all parts of the world. While awareness of trafficking and of relevant rights and obligations has improved significantly, this has not resulted in substantial improvements on the ground. Large numbers of women, men and children continue to be exploited; very few receive support, protection or redress; few of those who are doing the exploiting are apprehended and in every country the number of prosecutions remains stubbornly low. Many of the obstacles to a more effective response have been addressed in the previous sections of the present report. Nevertheless, it is pertinent to draw out those challenges that are likely to be of particular concern to the international community and to the mandate as it evolves in the future. A. Clarifying the parameters of the international legal definition 67. The parameters of the international legal definition need to be clarified, as it would be a mistake to assume that the adoption of the definition has ended discussion around the parameters of trafficking. In fact, there is a continuing vigorous debate within and among States and other actors over what conduct is or is not defined as “trafficking”. For example, to what extent does the act of “harbouring” enable the definition to encompass the maintenance of an individual in a situation of exploitation and not just movement into that situation? Would a single, minor deception at the recruitment stage be sufficient to turn an exploitative situation into one of trafficking? Is the consent of the victim ever relevant in establishing whether trafficking has occurred? How broadly should the phrase “abuse of a position of vulnerability” be read? For example, should it include vulnerability related to economic necessity or to immigration status? How broadly should “exploitation” (including “sexual exploitation”) be understood? What criteria, if any, should be used to determine whether other exploitative practices are to be included within the open-ended list set out in the international definition? What are the relationships between trafficking and related practices also prohibited under international law, including slavery, servitude and forced labour? When would an instance of forced labour or slavery not be trafficking? How should exploitation through debt bondage be understood in the context of modern recruitment and employment practices? And critically, at what point does a bad employment situation metamorphose into trafficking? 17 18 18 See, for example, A/HRC/20/18, para. 71 and A/HRC/20/18/Add.2, para. 77 (h). See, for example, A/HRC/20/18, para. 90 and A/HRC/20/18/Add.2, paras. 72, 73 and 77 (h).