Access to Medical Information in Penal Facilities: A Recent Development in Japan

By Mr. Teppei Ono

For inmates suffering from an illness, life in prison can be extremely harsh. No matter how many times they ask to see medical staff, they may not be able to get the medical treatment they need. Even if a medical consultation is available, it will be monitored by prison guards. No detailed explanation of their illness – not to mention their medical records – is given to the inmates themselves. This has long been the daily scene for health care in Japanese prisons. However, a recent court judgment may change this deadlocked practice. A legal group acting for a detainee including Ms. Tomoko Uraki, who studied at the Essex Human Rights Centre from 2013 to 2014 under the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Japan Federation of Bar Associations (JFBA), has won a ground-breaking decision.

The Japanese Supreme Court handed down its decision on 15 June 2021, allowing the detainee’s request for the disclosure of his medical records. Throughout the history of the Japanese correctional services, the government has never accepted inmates’ requests for the disclosure of the medical records kept by the penal institutions, even after disclosure became an established practice among hospitals in the outside community. The government explains that this is because if such information is disclosed, it could be used by a third party to check whether an individual has a criminal record, which could hamper ex-offenders’ reintegration into society. For example, employers may require all employees – whether or not they admit to having a criminal record – to seek disclosure of medical records from penal institutions. If information is disclosed, the employer would find out that the individual actually has a criminal record. For fear of this abstract risk of abuse, the government has continued to reject the disclosure of the information. Another rationale behind this policy was that the Personal Information Protection Act, which provides for the disclosure of personal information including medical records, exempts ‘personal information relating to the decision in a criminal case’ and ‘execution of a punishment’. When disclosure requests are made, the Correctional Bureau always cites this exemption clause, stating that the Act does not apply to medical records in penal institutions as these records fall under ‘personal information relating to the decision in a criminal case’ or those regarding ‘execution of punishment’. Inmates who wish to have their medical records disclosed, therefore, have had no choice but to apply to the court for the preservation of evidence, by showing that there is a risk of their records being manipulated. The obstinate practice of refusing disclosure has severely hampered inmates’ access to their medical information.

In the present case, the Supreme Court declared that medical records stored in penal institutions should be subject to disclosure under the Personal Information Protection Act, holding that the exemption clause does not apply. Before the current Act was brought into force, the law clearly excluded medical records from the scope of disclosure. However, on the basis of growing awareness of the principles of informed consent for medical treatment, the former law was amended in 2003, to abolish the clause that excluded medical records from disclosure. Noting that medical care provided in penal institutions is no different in its nature from that provided in the community in general, the court held that the amendment allowed inmates to make requests for disclosure of their medical records, as was possible in society in general. The Presiding Judge Katsuya Uga further elaborated on this in his concurring opinion, stating that access for inmates to their medical records has become a global standard. He mentioned various international documents, including Principle 26 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, Rule 26.1 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) and the World Medical Association Declaration of Lisbon on the Rights of Patient, all of which show that inmates have a right to access their medical information. He also referred to the words of Professor Andrew Coyle that ‘any medical judgements and treatments will be based on the needs of the individual prisoner and not on the needs of the administration’. Drawing on these international documents, the presiding judge concluded that access to medical records should be guaranteed in the same way as it is in the outside community.

The Supreme Court’s decision will lead to a significant improvement in inmates’ access to medical information. The majority opinion, which reaffirmed that the medical care provided in penal institutions should not be different in its nature from that provided in the general community, will have a positive impact on correctional health care. Additionally, it is worth noting that the Supreme Court mentioned many international documents in its decision, even in the concurring opinion. The JFBA has released a presidential statement strongly supporting the Supreme Court decision. It is to be hoped that this court decision will lead to progress in reforming correctional health care in Japan.

Mr. Teppei ONO is an Attorney at Law, Secretary General of Center for Prisoners’ Rights Japan, LL.M., University of Essex, J.D., Chuo Law School

Weekly Round up of Human Rights News

By Andrea Vremis

In Focus: The New Texas Abortion Law – Another Threat to Reproductive Rights

At midnight on September 1, a Texas law banning six-week abortions came into effect after the Supreme Court refused to block it, in a clear threat to sexual and reproductive rights as the pro-choice vs pro-life battle continues. It is the strictestabortion law in the United States where abortion has been a constitutional right since the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that established it. While anti-abortion activists and evangelicals rejoice, it was a ‘dark day’ for women, doctors and pro-choice activists. Many spoke out against the ban, and President Biden declared his administration’s commitment to Roe v. Wade and the right to abortion, stating it will ‘protect and defend that right’. 

According to the 19th, because of how early it is, the six-week ban is essentially a complete abortion ban for many. Often, people don’t realize they’re pregnant at six weeks or earlier. In 2018, almost two thirds of abortions took place after six weeks. Moreover, the law also established a ‘vigilante system of punishment’ which incentivized private citizens to snitch, stating that private citizens can sue anyone they believe may have ‘aided or abetted’ someone to get an abortion after six weeks. If a lawsuit is successful, the plaintiff could receive at least $10,000 and be reimbursed for any legal fees. And while the law isn’t specific about what would constitute ‘aiding and abetting’, legal experts say this vague language could have a ‘chilling effect’. For example, it would discourage people from giving someone money to get an abortion after six weeks, help drive them to an out-of-state appointment or find lodging. 

The impact of the law was already felt by clinics which provide abortions, with Texas’ Planned Parenthood clinics stopping to schedule post-six-week abortion appointments after September 1 since August. Whole Woman’s Health, another major abortion provider said it would ‘no longer schedule such visits starting Wednesday’ when the law went into effect. At Whole Woman’s Health in Fort North, abortions were being performed until midnight on Wednesday in a race to beat the new six-week ban. Meanwhile, President Biden has launched a ‘whole-of-government’ response to oppose the new law while pro-choice activists continue fighting to reverse it in order to ensure safe and legal abortions and uphold reproductive rights. 

Headlines From Around the World

World: 

Africa: 

Americas:

Asia:

Europe:

Middle East:

Weekly Round up of Human Rights News

By Andrea Vremis

In Focus: The Future of Women and Girls’ Rights in Afghanistan

On Sunday, August 16, 2021, the Afghan government collapsed as the Taliban took over and President Ashraf Ghani fled the country. While the world watched the unfolding events with horror and concern for the Afghan people, whose lives were in danger, one of the biggest concerns was aimed at the women and girls whose rights and freedoms the Taliban threatened and continue to do so. In his remarks to the Security Council, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said, ‘I am particularly concerned by accounts of mounting human rights violations against the women and girls of Afghanistan who fear a return to the darkest days.’ UN Women too stressed the importance of protecting their ‘hard-won rights’. According to Human Rights Watch, ‘can we trust the Taliban on women’s rights?’ has been a question journalists often asked in recent years. ‘The answer used to be “no”; the answer now is that it doesn’t matter much’ wrote Heather Barr in ‘The Fragility of Women’s Rights in Afghanistan’. 

Between 1996 and 2001 when the Taliban was last in power, the world witnessed their stance, or the lack of, on women’s rights and ‘how close to the fringe the Taliban views were on what Islam permitted’. They banned almost all education for women and girls, enforced punishments such as stoning, lashing, and amputation, and confined women to their homes unless accompanied by a male family member, denying them even a walk. In recent weeks, as the Taliban advanced throughout Afghanistan, we heard alarming reports of school closures, movement restrictions, and women being forced to leave their jobs.

Recently, horror stories emerged that struck ‘fear in the hearts and minds of women around the world’. In Khandahar, the Taliban forced women to leave their jobs in banks and escorted them home at gunpoint. In other places, they reinstated their rule of compulsory veiling according to a report from BBC PersiaIn a piece for the Guardian, a university student wrote about having to hide her IDs, diplomas and certificates, ‘now I have to burn everything I achieved’. Zarifa Ghafari, one of Afghanistan’s first female mayors, was forced to flee in fear for her life. She told the Independent, ‘I’m sitting here waiting for them to come. There is no one to help me or my family. They will come for people like me and kill me.’ 

Highlighting the role the international community played in Afghanistan, Mahbouba Seraj, a longtime Afghan women’s rights activist, said, ‘I’m going to say – really – shame on you. I’m going to say to the whole world, shame on you.’ According to Human Rights Watch, standing beside Afghan women in their struggle and finding the right tools and political will to pressure the Taliban is the least the international community can do.

World:

Africa:

Americas:

Asia:

Europe:

Middle East:

Weekly Round up of Human Rights News

By Andrea Vremis

In Focus: Sex Worker Human Rights Defenders – Among World’s Most ‘At Risk Activists’ 

According to a recently released report by Front Line Defenders, sex workers fighting for human rights are among the world’s most ‘at risk activists’, facing numerous threats and violent attacks. The study involved 300 sex workers from Tanzania, Kyrgyzstan, El Salvador and Myanmar, and focused on cases of sexual assault, threats from managers and clients, raids on homes and offices, physical attacks and police surveillance ‘endured by sex workers undertaking human rights work’. Sex worker activists undertake extremely important work to ensure the human rights of all sex workers, including negotiating access to brothels, conducting gender rights training, offering legal and health counseling, reporting experiences of violence, and advocating for freedom of movement and free choice of employment for those trying to leave sex work. However, this also makes them a target to various violations, especially those suffered by sex workers.

According to Erin Kilbride, lead author of the report, ‘sex worker rights defenders take extreme personal risks to protect their communities’ rights to access justice, healthcare, housing and food, while responding to immediate threats of police and domestic violence, discrimination, criminalization and structural poverty’. Per the report, these activists were usually the only ones able and willing to provide health education in places where sex was sold and ensure treatment for sex workers who would otherwise be left with life-threatening injuries and illnesses. They also helped create community networks and defended the right to assemble for sex works, ‘coming together, even in private, is a radical, resistant, and dangerous act for defenders whose very identities are criminalized’. 

In Tanzania, sexual assault by police while in detention have become a common occurrence for sex workers who are often forced to perform sexual acts in exchange for release. Sex worker rights defenders are often forced to do so in order to secure other sex workers’ release. In El Salvador, as well as other countries, sex workers were subject to physical attacks by clients and managers once their activism was revealed. In Myanmar, police followed activists to brothels to conduct raids during human rights trainings, forcing some activists to change the place where they sell sex work due to increased police surveillance. In Kyrgyzstan, sex workers are often paid or threatened by police to help catch rights defenders when they attempt to distribute health supplies in an area. But these attacks only serve to highlight the importance of the human rights work done by sex worker activists. ‘The targeted attacks they experience – ranging from sexual assault in detention to raids on their homes and offices – are indicators of how powerful their human rights work is,’ added Kilbride.

World:

Africa:

Americas:

Asia:

Europe:

Middle East:

Weekly Round up of Human Rights News

By Andrea Vremis

World:

Africa:

Americas:

Asia:

Europe:

Middle East:

Weekly Round up of Human Rights News

In Focus: Inquiry Finds Malta’s Government Responsible for the Murder of Journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia

By Andrea Vremis

A picture containing person, crowd

Description automatically generated
Photo: Guglielmo Mangiapane/Reuters 

On Thursday, an independent inquiry found that Malta’s government was responsible for the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, asserting that the Maltese government had created a ‘culture of impunity’ that led to her murder. Daphne Caruana Galizia was an investigative journalist working to expose corruption in Malta, described by Politico as ‘a one-woman WikiLeaks’. She was killed in a car bombing in October 2017while allegedly investigating ‘corruption in a business linked to wealthy businessman’ with ties to the government, Yorgen Fenech. 

Fenech is the alleged mastermind behind the killing and was charged with complicity in her murder in November 2019 as the long-stalled investigation into Caruana Galizia’s murder intensified. He continues to deny any responsibility. Three men were also charged with the murder, with one of them sentenced to 15 years in prison after pleading guilty and the other two awaiting trial. The alleged ‘middleman’ agreed to reveal details of the plot to assassinate the investigative journalist and was granted pardon in exchange. Following protests and a political crisis fueled by the investigation, then-prime-minister Joseph Muscat resigned. 

According to the 431-page report detailing the results of the inquiry, although Malta’s government did not play a direct role in the killing of Daphne Caruana Galizia, it had failed to protect her from threats to her life. The inquiry also established that her murder was ‘clearly linked’ to her investigative work either directly or indirectly. This is echoed by the Caruana Galizia family as Daphne’s sister, Corinne Vella told Euronews in 2020, ‘her murder is connected to her work’. In a statement following the release of the inquiry findings, the Caruana Galizia family said the findings ‘confirm the conviction our family held from the moment Daphne was assassinated: that her assassination was a direct result of the collapse of the rule of law and the impunity that the state provided to the corrupt network she was reporting on’ adding their hope that its findings will restore the rule of law in Malta as well as ‘effective protection for journalists, and an end to impunity’. 

The murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia was just another example of how far those in power would go to silence journalists and reporters without impunity and a reminder that freedom of the press and democracy are constantly under threat. Around the world, governments continue to crack down on journalists, reporters and other members of civil society, from Belarus to Hong Kong and Myanmar to Brazil

Headlines From Around the World

World:

Africa:

Americas:

Asia:

Europe:

Middle East:

WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO PROTEST IN INDIA: Limitations of a Protected Fundamental Right

By Kapil Devnani & Anand Singh

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution grants its citizens the right to protest. However, at present, said right is not equally shared. In recent times, the Indian Government has adopted a new strategy of criminalizing the protestors and arresting them which ultimately results in the devastation of the protests. The Supreme Court has failed to protect this right, therefore allowing the government to undermine this quite easily. These drastic measures have been ongoing since the time of protests against CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) and have also been witnessed during the recent protest against the farm laws.

CAA was an amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955 introduced with the aim of providing Indian Citizenship to the illegal migrants coming from Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan on or before 31st December 2014. One of the many conditions for obtaining citizenship under this amendment was that the individual must belong to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community. The Act was recognised as discriminatory against the Muslim community and was subject to a massive protest in December 2019. During this protest, the Government attempted to terminate the Right to Dissent by accusing students and journalists of being anti-nationals. There were several instances where the police allegedly entered the college campuses and used violence against the students. Furthermore, various scholars and journalists who participated in this protest were charged under UAPA. This legislation, which gives the Central Government the power to designate groups as terrorist organizations was used against those who opposed its policies. These instances demonstrate the value of dissent under the current regime, which was recognized as “the safety valve of the democracy,” by the Supreme Court of India in 2018.

A women-led peaceful protest against the CAA was carried out in Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh neighbourhood from December 14th 2019 to March 24th2020. The Supreme Court accepted the fact that Saheen Bagh protestors do have a Right to Protest, but it was of the opinion that the said protest was disturbing the public order as the protestors were causing “an inconvenience to the commuters”. However, exercising public order mentioned under Article 19(2) as a restriction on the freedom to protest can only be reasonable when there is evidence to prove that the protestors will incite some sort of lawlessness in the society, but in this case, there was no such evidence as the protest was peaceful in nature. While deciding the case, the Supreme Court stated that “public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely.” However, the court did not clarify the phrase, which defined the manner and duration of protest as ambiguous was judged as a bad precedent. 

The current protest of farmers is no exception. The farmers from Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh are protesting against three farm laws passed by the Parliament in the monsoon session. These are the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020; and The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act 2020. According to farmers, these acts will severely affect their livelihood and because of that, they are protesting for the complete rollback of these legislations since November 2020. Throughout these demonstrations, the Indian government has tried its best to break up the protests and prevent future ones by arresting union leaders and spokespeople for the movement. Moreover, several rightwing propagandists have labelled these farmers as “Khalistanis” in an attempt to defame and discredit the entire movement. Khalistani is someone who supports the idea of Khalistan movement which is a Sikh separatist movement seeking to create a sovereign state for Sikhs, called Khalistan. They are also being accused of replacing the tricolour Indian national flag with a Khalistani flag however, these reports were unsubstantiated. The flag hoisted by farmers on 26th January was Nishan Sahib which is a religious flag of Sikhs and represents various farm unions.

Spokesperson of Delhi BJP, Tajinder Balla (a member of the ruling party) on November 27th 2020, tweeted that “Those who are chanting the slogan of ‘Khalistan zindabad’ are Congress agents.” Another member of BJP Delhi, Impreet Singh Bakshi on the same date tweeted thatprotesters might be misguided by the leaders of the Congress, the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) or the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).”  These tweets clearly present the intention of the ruling government to politicize the whole issue by defaming other parties and safeguarding its rule. It is not the first time that the government or different political parties have tried to politicize the protest for their own benefit. During the times of CAA protest, the ruling government also accused the Congress party of undermining the whole protest for favours of office.

In summary, the Indian government is attempting to subdue the right to protest through violence, intimidation, and by using its political power to win political favour and undermine people’s Constitutional right to protest.

About the Authors: Kapil Devnani & Anand Singh are 2nd law students yet at Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur

Weekly Round up of Human Rights News

In Focus: Doctor Fighting Injustice Detained in Turkmenistan

By Andrea Vremis

On July 16, police in Turkmenistan arrested Khursanai Ismatullaeva, a doctor whose unfair dismissal from her job was discussed in the European Parliament a day earlier. Since being fired from the neonatal clinic where she worked near Ashgabat, the Turkmen capital, Ismatullaeva has been fighting the dismissal, in a case allegedly full of irregularities according to Turkmen.news, an independent news outlet based in the Netherlands. 

Five members of the EU Parliament raise concerns on detention of health professional Khursanai Ismatullaeva

Human Rights Watch reported that about 10 police arrested Ismatullaeva from her home and confiscated her phones and computer equipment. Four days later, there was no official information on her whereabouts or the reason for her arrest and any failures by the authorities to acknowledge her detention or attempts to hide her whereabouts would make her detention an enforced disappearance, which is a grave human rights violation and serious crime under international law. But this wouldn’t be the first case of an enforced disappearance in the prison system. Human Rights Watch reports that dozens of people forcibly disappear, some for more than fifteen years, while their families have no information about them, even whether they are dead or alive. 

Turkmenistan is one of the most repressive countries in the world, ruled by President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov and his personality cult. All fundamental rights and freedoms are extremely restricted, including freedom of expression, association and religion, and no criticism towards the government is tolerated. Anyone who exposes, or even hints at, the rampant corruption, injustices and incompetence is imprisoned and often forcibly disappeared. Turkmen authorities silence those who speak out about abuse, intimidate them from speaking to Turkmen human rights groups outside the country, and emotionally blackmail human rights activists who express concern. 

Since Khursanai Ismatullaeva’s case was heard in an international forum and has gained international visibility, authorities are likely retaliating against her, according to Human Rights Watch. Furthermore, every minute she spends in custody puts her at risk of torture or other ill-treatment, or coercion to confess to false charges as often happens in these cases in Turkmenistan. 

World: 

Africa:

Americas:

Asia:

Europe:

Middle East:

Weekly Round up of Human Rights News

By Andrea Vremis

World: 

Africa:

Americas: 

Asia:

Europe:

Middle East:

INADEQUACY OF LAWS AGAINST CROSS-BORDER SEX TRAFFICKING OF NEPALI GIRLS

By Ayush Kumar, this was first published by RightsViews on the 8th of July

Globalisation has caused the emergence of new technologies that facilitate trading and transport making business more rewarding. This change had negative ramifications too, one is cross-boundary human trafficking. After arms and drugtrafficking, human trafficking is the third-largest crime in magnitude and profit. There are nearly 36 million victims of human trafficking in the world, out of which two-thirds are from Asia. 

Nepal and India lie in a region which suffers from widespread social as well as economic disparities twinned with a huge number of migratory flows between the two countries possibly because of the open and porous borders. India and Nepal abide by the Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1950) that gives permission for the free movement of people and goods across the border. It turns out that this friendship comes at a heavy cost as the open border has become a facilitating factor in numerous illegal practices, smuggling, and trafficking of people being one of the most frequent of such practices. It is estimated that around 50 girls are trafficked from Nepal to India on a daily basis. According to the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal, around 35,000 Nepali girls were trafficked between 2018-19.  

A bustling market in Kathmandu, Nepal. Photo by Laurentiu Morariu on Unsplash.

Nepal- A Patriarchy With Widespread Poverty And Unemployment

Nepali girls, in their early childhood, are denied access to basic education, equality, and personal autonomy because of the rigid Nepali patriarchal society. Parents creep away from spending resources on a girl child primarily because of high and persistent unemployment, widespread poverty, prospective dowry demands, and a cultural preference for a boy child. One major reason for widespread trafficking is child marriage, which is prevalent in both India and Nepal. In fact, fictitious love and marriage are used as a pretext for luring a victim or their family for trafficking. Parents marry off their girl child at a very early age, husbands then sell them off to brothels for monetary benefits. Many a time, traffickers promise better wages and better working conditions in foreign lands to lure the victim into the trap. This trick works only because the traffickers take advantage of the fact that there is widespread poverty and unemployment in Nepal. 

Effect of Covid-19 Pandemic And STDs

With Covid-19 in the picture, one-third population of Nepal, who lived close to the poverty line before the pandemic arrived, could fall below the poverty line. This will aggravate the economic conditions in Nepal. Additionally, research shows that disease outbreak acts as a major catalyst for the practice of trafficking. This is the reason why the authorities should be more vigilant as the risk of exploitation of Nepali women and girls is much greater now.

Further, women lose their basic human rights for a lifetime once taken away from their homeland. These girls brought to India as virgins suffer from diseases like HIV (Human immunodeficiency viruses) which not only jeopardise their health but also shut down any possibility of them going back to their country and getting accepted for a fresh start. One survey in Bombay indicated that 50% of female prostitutes were infected with HIV and other STDs (Sexually Transmitted Diseases). This is the reason why women who are not fit for sexual exploitation anymore choose to get into the trade themselves rather than getting back with their families. 

Domestic Laws And International Treaties Against Sex Trafficking 

Nepali girls are then forced to work in the Indian sex industry where prostitution is not a criminal offence while the Human Trafficking and Transportation (Control) Act, 2064 (2007) makes prostitution in Nepal punishable by imprisonment. However, while there is no provision under the law, which makes prostitution a criminal offence in India, running a brothel is illegal under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956

There are many domestic laws in place to tackle the menace of human trafficking in India as well as Nepal but none of them seem to serve the purpose as trafficking has only been exponentially rising day by day. Article 23 in the Indian Constitution, which is a fundamental right, prohibits trafficking in human beings and forced labour. Additionally, Section 366B of the Indian Penal Code makes importing any girl under twenty-one years with the intent that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person a punishable offence. Nepal‘s Trafficking in Persons and Transportation (Control) Act 2007 also works for preventing cross-border trafficking along with its Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act (2000), and Muluki Ain also used to regulate women trafficking. 

International frameworks are as futile as domestic laws in curbing human trafficking. India and Nepal both agreed with the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) and its protocol for preventing the trafficking of human beings. Both the nations are party to the regional conventions such as the SAARC Convention on protecting and Combating Trafficking in Women and children for prostitution (2002), whose purpose was to promote cooperation amongst the Member States so that they may effectively deal with the various aspects of prevention, interdiction, and suppression of trafficking in women and children.

Urgent Need For A Framework To Counter Sex-trafficking

Nepal and India have shared an unrestricted border since 1950 (Treaty of Peace and Friendship) with the view of aiding the flow of goods and people across the border. Sex trafficking of women from Nepal to India has also taken a free ride with over 50 girls being trafficked per day. There are numerous reasons to explain this mushrooming “trade”, yet widespread poverty and unemployment stand ahead in the line with traffickers taking advantage of the same to lure in girls, promising them a better future in a foreign land. Nepali women suffer from life-threatening diseases like HIV which are often a result of coercive, unprotected sex. Additionally, the domestic laws of both the countries and the international treaties to which India and Nepal are parties have proved to be futile. There is an apparent need for both countries to come forward and implement a mutually agreed framework. 

It is crucial that India and Nepal come together and formulate a singular framework to uproot all trafficking supply chains. Border security forces of both countries need to devise a plan and train their guards in order to efficaciously distinguish between a person being trafficked against their will and simply an irregular migrant. UNODC’s SOP to tackle cross-border trafficking presses on the role of the first responders (First responders are agencies, organisations, or individuals, with a responsibility to identify and interview a potential adult or child victim of human trafficking.) like security forces and lists down some physical indicators to identify and save a person being trafficked. 

One of the rudimentary physical indicators includes signs of fear, submissiveness, nervousness, distress, anxiousness, especially in females. Many a time, traffickers, in order to trick the border authorities, make children wear expensive-looking clothes and accessories in which children, usually, look uncomfortable. Lastly, a legal framework must be established for the people who want to migrate to India with their own choice, this way, sifting migrants from trafficked people will become easier. 

Author’s Bio: Ayush Kumar is a B. A. L.L. B (Hons.) student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow, India. He finds his interest in Human Rights Law and Intellectual Property Law. He can be contacted using his LinkedIn.