As noted previously, trafficked persons are routinely deported from countries of transit and destination. While States are able to point to a legal entitlement to control their own borders (and the absence of an obligation to permit all persons identified as having been trafficked to stay), there can be no doubt that forced repatriation to the country of origin or to a third country can have serious consequences for victims of trafficking. They may be subject to punishment from national authorities for unauthorized departure or other alleged offenses; they may face social isolation or stigmatization and be rejected by their families and communities; they may be subject to violence and intimidation from traffickers – particularly if they have cooperated with criminal justice agencies or owe money that cannot be repaid. Victims of trafficking who are forcibly repatriated, particularly without the benefit of supported reintegration, are at great risk of retrafficking. From a legal perspective, the issue of repatriation is a controversial one, involving consideration of complex issues such as entitlement to return and the principle of non-refoulement. As demonstrated below, a legal determination of the nature and scope of State obligations in this area requires a careful balance of often conflicting rights and interests.

The question of victim entitlement to remedies is equally difficult, if somewhat less politically controversial. The analysis in this chapter seeks to identify and explain the obligation of States to provide remedies to victims of trafficking, as well as the substantive content of that obligation.