principle of non-refoulement. It has to be shown that there is a real risk of being exposed to retaliation and that the State is not able or not willing to offer adequate protection. 138 It is argued that the protection of non-refoulement of Art. 3 ECHR is also applicable when the country of origin of the trafficked person is not able to supply adequate social and/ or medical assistance. The lack of social and/or medical assistance may lead to suffering reaching the minimum level of severity required by Art. 3 ECHR.139 Art. 3 ECHR can serve as a ground to claim residency for trafficked persons in a country of destination. In the case of a trafficked person who has been unsuccessful in acquiring asylum status under a country’s national law or any other form of residence, Art. 3 ECHR may form an additional layer of protection.140 To conclude, firstly, in order to be able to use the protection of non-refoulement, it has to be shown that trafficking in human beings and harms connected to it such as re-trafficking or retaliation can amount to torture or – under the ECHR –to other forms of ill-treatment. Secondly, the obligation of States not to expel a person to a country in which the person might be tortured leads to the obligation that States have to conduct a risk assessment prior to the return of a trafficked person. The risk assessment has to encompass an assessment of the general situation in the State as well as the specific circumstances of the person. 4.1.6 Recognition of Cases of Trafficking in Human Beings as Cases of Torture or other Forms of Ill-treatment In the case Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, the ECtHR held that there was no need to deal in particular with the applicant’s complaint concerning Art. 3 ECHR. It was argued that Ms. Rantseva was subject to ill-treatment prior to her death. The ECtHR held that the ill-treatment was “inherently linked to the alleged trafficking and exploitation”. Consequently, the ECtHR assessed it as not necessary to consider a violation of Art. 3 ECHR separately.141 tary protection, the non-refoulement principle would offer victims of trafficking further possibilities of residence. The complementary protection of trafficked persons would also allow residence even if the trafficked person is unable or unwilling to co-operate with the authorities in the country of destination. It is important to recognize that certain threats upon return can bar refoulement for trafficked persons.142 In cases of trafficking in human beings, the consequences of the return on the trafficked person must be taken into consideration. If the situation in the country of origin amounts to torture – or other forms of ill-treatment within the States of the Council of Europe – then States parties are obliged to adhere to the principle of non-refoulement and not to return the trafficked person. In cases of trafficking in human beings, it may be challenging to show that the threats of return may amount to torture or other forms of ill-treatment if the act of trafficking in human beings itself is not recognized as torture or other forms of ill-treatment. Experience in the European context shows that cases of trafficking in human beings are rather handled under Art. 4 ECHR (Prohibition of slavery and forced labour) than under Art. 3 ECHR (Prohibition of torture).143 For example, Spanish civil society showed during an ODIHR expert meeting on human rights in the return of trafficked persons that NGOs include Art. 3 ECHR and non-refoulement reasons in their cases for legal protection of trafficked persons, but these grounds were not taken into account by judges.144 A reason for this might be uncertainty about the link between trafficking in human beings and torture or other forms of ill-treatment and the absence of interpretative guidelines on this issue.145 Case Study 8 Mostly, cases of trafficking in human beings are not officially recognized by courts or authorities as cases of torture or CIDT. Having analysed the possibilities of complemen- Gender and Torture – Conference Report 143 144 Report, Second Expert Meeting on Human Rights Protection in the return of trafficked persons to countries of origin , Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 141 and Russia 32 International Journal of Case of Rantsev v. Cyprus Refugee Law,