A/HRC/56/60 afforded under international law to vulnerable categories such as … victims of trafficking or at risk of being trafficked”.65 48. The Special Rapporteur recalls that the obligation of non-refoulement and the prohibition of collective expulsion applies to protect any person, citizen or non-citizen, without discrimination subject to the de jure or de facto control of a State party, without any form of discrimination and regardless of the nationality or statelessness or the legal, administrative or judicial status of the person concerned under ordinary or emergency law. 66 49. The Human Rights Committee has repeatedly highlighted concerns in relation to pushbacks at sea, which do not comply with the international obligation of non-refoulement (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, arts. 6, 7 and 13).67 The absence of individualized screening and inadequate identification procedures during interdictions in the Caribbean Sea has reportedly led to forced returns, without individualized assessments of risk and protection needs.68 50. In the context of trafficking in persons, the risk of persecution on return is particularly acute and may arise from the risks of reprisals by those involved in trafficking and from risks of retrafficking (including by family and community members, armed groups or criminal networks). Gender plays a central role in determining and shaping the incidence, risk and severity of persecution.69 51. The obligation of non-refoulement includes a well-established due diligence obligation of States to prevent mistreatment by third parties, including private actors or other States operating within their jurisdiction or effective control. The Special Rapporteur notes that in a situation in which a State provides material support or assistance to another State to carry out search and rescue operations, there is an obligation to take all reasonable measures to ensure that the State performing the operations complies with the prohibitions of refoulement and collective expulsion. Individualized risk assessments must be carried out and essential procedural safeguards established to ensure effective protection of victims of trafficking and persons at risk of trafficking. The obligation of individualized assessments is essential to the prohibition of collective expulsions, and to the positive obligation to identify and protect victims of trafficking or potential victims thereof.70 X. Access to justice, effective remedies and the obligation of prompt effective investigations 52. The Special Rapporteur highlights the obligation to ensure access to justice and effective remedies to victims of trafficking, despite the additional obstacles that may arise in relation to trafficking in persons in the context of mixed migration at sea. The right to an effective remedy, and the duty of States to carry out effective investigations to combat impunity and to ensure accountability for the serious crime and serious human rights violation of trafficking in persons, persists in the context of trafficking that occurs at sea. 65 66 67 68 69 70 14 Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly resolution 1821 (2011), para 9.12. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 (2017), para 10. CCPR/C/CYP/CO/5, para. 31. See, for example, Michael Feltovic and Robert O’Donnell, “Coast Guard migrant interdiction operations are in a state of emergency”, United States Naval Institute, February 2023. On interception on the high seas, the prohibition of collective expulsion and the right to an individualized assessment, see: Haitian Centre for Human Rights et al. v. United States, Case 10.675, Report No. 51/96, InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.95 Doc. 7 rev., para. 180. In the same decision, the Commission also found that the prohibition of non-refoulement was applicable to interceptions on the high seas, thereby rejecting the contrary position of the Supreme Court of the United States in Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Case No. 92-344, Opinion, 21 June 1993. A/HRC/53/28, para. 54; and Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, general recommendation No. 38 (2020), para. 88. European Court of Human Rights, J.A. and Others v. Italy, application No. 21329/18, Judgment, 30 March 2023, in which the Court found a violation of article 4 of Protocol No. 4: “the refusal-ofentry and removal orders issued in the applicants’ case did not have proper regard to their individual situations” (para. 115). GE.24-06692