A/HRC/56/48 and exploit vulnerable women,139 and has failed to discourage unsafe sexual practices and widened the spectrum of “offers” to include even pregnant women, and attracted vulnerable young women into the sex trade. Decriminalizing the sex trade has kept the identification and prosecution of traffickers low, as is the case in Switzerland140 and Germany.141 It has also placed the burden on prostituted women, especially those subjected to unsafe or slavery-like conditions, to pursue costly and protracted legal action against their employers through labour courts.142 It has increased the demand with new mega brothels, and emboldened entitlement among buyers, leading to increase in violence.143 The approach also lacks State mechanisms for exiting prostitution or obtaining social and professional integration. 31. Both the regulation and decriminalization approaches view prostitution as inevitable and the elimination of male demand for sexual acts impossible. Researchers have discovered that, in 150 countries, demand increased when prostitution was legal.144 Countries that have legalized or decriminalized prostitution have recorded higher rates of sex trafficking, violence, abuse and rape and increased prospects for money laundering and drug trafficking.145 32. The abolition approach, also known as the “Nordic” or “Equality Model”, adopted in Sweden,146 France,147 Ireland148 and Canada,149 maintains the international standard on the sexual exploitation of the prostitution of others and trafficking in persons by criminalizing third parties and decriminalizing prostituted persons, but adds the criminalization of buyers as the main actors who drive the demand and fuel the commercial sex industry. By shifting the criminal responsibility to the buyer and considering prostituted persons as victims of systemic discrimination, as well as violence against women, it offers prevention, protection and exiting alternatives to them. This approach has demonstrated concrete positive results by improving the situation of persons in or at risk of exploitation; deterring buyers and third parties; and reducing harmful gender stereotypes. For example, in Sweden, no murders of prostituted women by buyers or pimps have been reported, and a large percentage of women have successfully exited the system with the support of specialized organizations. 150 In Canada, there has been a noticeable drop in the number of murders of prostituted women and in the number of women guilty of minor offences.151 France has fined nearly 8,000 buyers and increased victims’ compensation as a result of a 54 per cent increase in proceedings against pimps and buyers.152 Ireland has implemented national campaigns to educate young people about the risks of recruitment into the sex trade.153 The legal obligation to treat prostituted women as victims entitled to protection and rights has resulted in the expansion of State-sponsored victim-support services.154 All States have introduced public awareness courses to discourage demand, and training for law enforcement on a victim-centred, traumainformed approach. Courts in both France and Canada have ruled that prostitution is inseparable from pimping and human trafficking, violates human dignity and undermines women’s right to equality.155 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 12 Submission by Stop Demand Foundation. Plate Forme Traite, Alternative Report on the Implementation of COE CETS 197 in Switzerland, 2023. Submission from SOLWODI. Submission by Women’s Rights Party et al. Submission by Nordic Model Now! S. Cho et al. Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking?, World Development, 2013, 41(C). Submission by Sisters. Regeringens proposition 1997/98:55. LOI n° 2016-444. Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017. Bill C-36. Submission by Sweden, Unizon et al. Submission by Women Space Vancouver. Submission by Le Mouvement du Nid. Submission by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. Submission by Amicale du Nid. Decision of France Constitutional Court n° 2018-761 QPC and Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling CV-21-659594.