information concerning their rights (including the reparations available and the existence of and modalities for accessing reparation mechanisms); legal, medical, psychological, social, administrative and other types of assistance necessary to seek remedies; and should be granted a reflection and recovery period, followed by residence status while they seek remedies.357 In the context of return, the procedural element – the provision of a reflection period, accompanied by adequate assistance as required – is the first crucial step towards allowing trafficked persons being returned to effectively access remedies. It must also be noted that the existence of adequate identification and referral mechanisms that allow for the identification of trafficked persons is a prerequisite to providing a reflection period.358 Without the provision of a reflection period and complete information concerning the victim’s rights, including as regards access to remedies, it is probable that the victim’s ability to access those remedies will be ineffective, if not impossible. For that reason, the granting of a reflection period has been discussed in the context of due process issues (see Principle 2) concerning the return of trafficked persons. It is also a precondition that trafficked persons are able to make an informed decision as to the reparations to be sought before being returned after the end of the reflection period or at later date. If such information is not provided prior to return, then victims may face limited options to gain particular reparations and, thus, will not be provided effective access to remedies. The return of a trafficked person to the country of origin can also be considered a remedy if it leads to restitution and provides guarantees of non-repetition.359 It is, therefore, imperative that the return be safe (see Principle 1). In practice, this means that trafficked persons cannot simply be turned away at the border, but that a proper identification process must first be completed, possibly followed by a reflection period and, most importantly, by a pre-return risk assessment (see Principle 2 – Due Process for more information).360 Importantly, the Draft Basic Principles also foresee that restitution would need to be in the best interests of the trafficked person.361 Return can only be considered an effective remedy when it is safe and, ideally, a step towards achieving a durable solution for the individual being returned. Two additional aspects relating to remedies are relevant here. The first concerns the possibility to claim compensation – even following return – including for civil damages 357  Ibid., para. 1.5. 358  On challenges relating to the identification of victims during the provision of international protection and forced return, see European Migration Network (EMN), Identification of victims of trafficking in human beings in international protection and forced return procedures – Summary Report, March 2014. 359  Draft basic principles on the right to an effective remedy for trafficked persons, para. 7. 360  See UNHCR et al., Prevent, Combat, Protect: Human Trafficking, pp. 59-60. 361  Draft basic principles on the right to an effective remedy for trafficked persons, paras 7(a),(b). The best interest principle is mandatory only when identifying a durable solution for child victims. However, together with the recommendation that states effectively address the root causes of trafficking in order to ensure that trafficked persons are not returned to conditions that place them at risk of being re-trafficked, the best interests principle is an important addition (see ibid., para. 7(c)). Part 2: Explanatory Report to the Principles 89