international protection mechanisms were found to be non-existent or inadequate.165 In most countries, referral systems were characterized as “ad hoc at best”. In general, protection and assistance systems for victims of trafficking and asylum systems operate separately, with little or no communication between the two.166 Trafficked persons may face time limits or other restrictions when applying for asylum. In some states, asylum claims can only be received within a definite period of time, and failure to make a claim within the stipulated period without a reasonable explanation can result in the application being rejected.167 It has been reported that some EU member states have not implemented the relevant EU legislation requiring states to consider previous persecution or serious harm committed against the asylum applicant as a serious indication of the risk of future persecution and harm. It was also found that some EU member states failed to take into account events taking place since the applicant left the country of origin that may necessitate international protection.168 Failure to properly implement these provisions may restrict the ability of trafficked persons to successfully claim protection and, therefore, pose risks to their right to life and freedom from persecution. In this context, some states have provided a narrow interpretation of the term “non-state actor” that excludes criminal organizations and the perpetrators of gender violence, including honour crimes and domestic violence.169 Moreover, some EU member states 165  UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNCHR), The Identification and Referral of Trafficked Persons to Procedures for Determining International Protection Needs, October 2009, PPLAS/2009/03, p. 21. 166  Sarah Richards, Hope Betrayed, op. cit., note 166, para. 3.1, p. 21. The study identified the following necessary features for an effective referral mechanism for trafficking victims: a functioning domestic procedure for identifying and registering trafficked persons, including the provision of free legal counselling; an effective additional system for addressing international protection needs; and a consistent and competent mechanism for referring trafficked persons from the first to the second procedure. 167  EU Qualification Directive, art. 4(1), stipulates that member states may consider it the duty of the applicant to submit “as soon as possible” all elements needed to substantiate the application for international protection. However, there is no provision on the consequences of failure to do so, and a recent European Commission report noted that there is no uniform understanding among member states of what “as soon as possible” means. European Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection, COM(2010)314, assessment of article 4. See also UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Beyond Proof, Credibility Assessment in EU Asylum Systems: Summary, May 2013 for a full discussion on article 4 of the EU Qualification Directive and the implications of late application. 168  European Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection, COM(2010)314, assessment of article 5. Note that Directive 2004/83/EC was repealed as of 21 December 2013 and replaced by Directive 2011/95. The practice of the EU member states under that directive remains to be assessed. 169  European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and European Legal Network on Asylum (ELENA), The Impact of the EU Qualification Directive on International Protection (2008), pp. 15-16. Part 2: Explanatory Report to the Principles 61