A/HRC/20/18 80. The Special Rapporteur notes that linking asset seizure to victim support is in line with a rights-based approach to human trafficking. Recovered assets can be a key source of funds when providing victims with compensation.103 The Special Rapporteur reminds States that trafficking victims have a right to compensation for the harm committed against them. 104 Indeed, article 6, paragraph 6 of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children provides that States parties legal systems must take measures that offer the possibility of compensation to victims.105 81. In some States, laws explicitly provide that restitution and compensation be made to victims of trafficking out of the proceeds of assets seizure. In Cambodia, for example, articles 46 and 47 of the Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation afford victims “preference over property confiscated by the State” for the payment of damages. Other schemes have been established to allow the direct transfer of funds to victims; for example, in Nigeria, the Victim of Trafficking Trust Fund manages the proceeds of confiscated assets for the welfare and rehabilitation of the victim. 106 In 2008, in England and Wales (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), in the matter of AT v Dulghieru, the High Court awarded compensation of £611,000 to four trafficking victims of the £786,000 that had been confiscated. 107 82. A number of States have established funds for victims in which seized assets are deposited; for example, in Egypt, article 27 of the Anti-Trafficking Law provides for the creation of a fund to assist victims of human trafficking sourced from proceeds of confiscated assets, fines and donations from foreign or national entities. Similarly, in Lesotho, the Anti-Trafficking Act 2011 provides for assets to be forfeited and confiscated, to be deposited in a trust fund for victims of trafficking. 83. The Special Rapporteur notes that there are other instances where, despite laws allowing for the seizure of assets, the proceeds of funds confiscated have reportedly failed to be distributed to victims. For example, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has a comprehensive anti-trafficking law,108 in a landmark case in 2009, a trafficking ringleader was sentenced to 12 years in prison, fined $14,286, and over $204,600 in assets were seized. There is, however, no evidence that these funds went to the victims. 109 Similarly, in the Czech Republic, following the successful prosecution of eight gang members for trafficking, the assets of the accused, estimated at more than $1.5 million, were seized. Again, no evidence was found that the funds had been distributed to the victims.110 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 20 See UNODC, Model Law against Trafficking in Persons, available from www.unodc.org/documents/humantrafficking/UNODC_Model_Law_on_Trafficking_in_Persons.pdf, and E/2002/68/Add.1, principle 16, guideline 4.4. See A/HRC/17/35, paras. 28-39. See also the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. See Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Law Enforcement and Administration Act, 2003, sects. 3538; and the submission by Nigeria, p. 7. AT, NT, ML, AK v Gavril and Tamara Dulghieru, 2009, EWHC 225 (QB). See Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, art. 111, para. 2, and submission by Bosnia and Herzegovina, p. 7. United States Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report 2010 (see footnote 66), Bosnia and Herzegovina. Tom Jones, “Police arrest gang for pimping and human trafficking”, Czech Position, 29 July 2011. Available from www.ceskapozice.cz/en/news/society/police-arrest-gang-pimping-and-humantrafficking.