Country Ratings
|
Tier Placements1
|
|
[Adapted from U.S. State Dept Trafficking in Persons Report, June 4, 2008] |
|
Tier
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Tier
2 |
|
Malta |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
Tier 2 Watch List |
|
Tier 3 |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
No Tier Rating |
|
========================================= |
|
1.
Determination of Tier Placements |
|
The Department places each country included on the 2007 TIP Report into one of the three lists, described here as tiers, mandated by the TVPA [Trafficking Victims Protection Act]. This placement is based more on the extent of government action to combat trafficking, rather than the size of the problem, important though that is. The Department first evaluates whether the government fully complies with the TVPA's minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking (detailed on pp. 228-229). Governments that do fully comply are placed in Tier 1. For other governments, the Department considers whether they are making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance. Governments that are making significant efforts to meet the minimum standards are placed in Tier 2. Governments that do not fully comply with the minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to do so are placed in Tier 3. Finally, the Special Watch List criteria are considered and, when applicable, Tier 2 countries are placed on the Tier 2 Watch List. |
|
2 Minimum
Standards |
|
1. The government should prohibit trafficking and punish acts of trafficking. |
|
2. The government should prescribe punishment commensurate with that for grave crimes, such as forcible sexual assault, for the knowing commission of trafficking in some of its most reprehensible forms (trafficking for sexual purposes, trafficking involving rape or kidnapping, or trafficking that causes a death). |
|
3. For knowing commission of any act of trafficking, the government should prescribe punishment that is sufficiently stringent to deter, and that adequately reflects the offense’s heinous nature. |
|
4. The government should make serious and sustained efforts to eliminate trafficking. |
|
a) Whether the government vigorously investigates and prosecutes acts of trafficking within its territory. |
|
b) Whether the government protects victims of trafficking, encourages victims’ assistance in investigation and prosecution, provides victims with legal alternatives to their removal to countries where they would face retribution or hardship, and ensures that victims are not inappropriately penalized solely for unlawful acts as a direct result of being trafficked. |
|
c) Whether the government has adopted measures, such as public education, to prevent trafficking. |
|
d) Whether the government cooperates with other governments in investigating and prosecuting trafficking. |
|
e) Whether the government extradites persons charged with trafficking as it does with other serious crimes. |
|
f) Whether the government monitors immigration and emigration patterns for evidence of trafficking, and whether law enforcement agencies respond appropriately to such evidence. |
|
g) Whether the government vigorously investigates and prosecutes public officials who participate in or facilitate trafficking, and takes all appropriate measures against officials who condone trafficking. |
|
3
Significant Efforts |
|
Three factors were considered in determining whether a country is making significant efforts to bring itself into compliance with these minimum standards. (1) the extent of trafficking in the country; (2) the extent of governmental noncompliance with the minimum standards, particularly the extent to which government officials have participated in, facilitated, condoned, or are otherwise complicit in trafficking; and (3) what measures are reasonable to bring the government into compliance with the minimum standards in light of the government’s resources and capabilities. |