4 KEY LEGAL ISSUES A human rights-based approach to trafficking, explored further in the context of Principle 1 and related guidelines, requires consideration of a range of legal questions. Three of the major legal “issues” that are raised at various points throughout this Commentary are introduced below. 4.1. TRAFFICKING AS A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS International law prohibits certain practices that are closely associated with trafficking, including debt bondage, forced labour, the worst forms of child labour, child sexual exploitation, forced marriage, enforced prostitution and the exploitation of the prostitution. International law also contains a strong prohibition on slavery, a prohibition that extends beyond human rights law to other areas of international law including the law of the sea, humanitarian law and international criminal law. The prohibition on torture, identified as a rule of customary international law,31 has also recently been invoked by international human rights bodies Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 24 (1994): Issues relating to reservations made upon 31 in the specific context of trafficking.32 As we come to understand more about how trafficking happens and why, the relevance of other strong international rules, including the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of race and sex, ratification or accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols thereto, or in relation to declarations under article 41 of the Covenant, para. 10; Prosecutor v. Furundzija (Trial Chamber) Case No. IT-95-17/1-T (10 December 1998) (Judgement), paras. 143-4; Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al. (Trial Chamber I) Case No. IT-96-23-T& IT-96-23/1-T (22 February 2001) (Judgement), para. 466 [Hereinafter: Kunarac Trial Chamber]. The Special Rapporteur on Torture has recently noted that victims of trafficking are often confined, forced to work for long periods of time, and subjected to severe forms of physical and mental violence “that may amount to torture or at least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment” (A/HRC/7/3, para. 56). The Special Rapporteur cites (para. 57) Siliadin v. France in support of a contention that the State may be held accountable for failing to prevent, prosecute and punish trafficking by non-State actors and for failing to provide appropriate protection for victims. He further cites (para. 57) Barar v. Sweden in which the European Court held that the expulsion of a person to a State where she or he would be subject to slavery or forced labour might raise issues under the obligation to prohibit torture. The Committee against Torture has also recognized the link between trafficking and torture. See, for example, concluding observations on Russian Federation (CAT/C/ RUS/CO/4, para. 11); South Africa (CAT/C/ZAF/CO/1, para. 24); Togo (CAT/C/TGO/CO/1, para. 26); Republic of Korea (CAT/C/KOR/CO/2, para. 18); and Austria (CAT/C/AUT/CO/3, para. 4). 32 COMMENTARY 37