Austria: Discriminations against Sex Workers

Inadequate Response to Forced Labor (Article 6, § 1)

Forced labor is a blatant violation of the right to freely choose ones work and states have the positive obligation to protect. Thereby, the meaning of forced labor is the same as in § 1 Article 2 ILO Convention 29 (General Comment 18/2005 of this Committee at § 9), whence it includes trafficking into prostitution and sexual exploitation. ^{NOTEREF _Ref341178537 \h \* MERGEFORMAT}
The Fifth State Party Report of Austria does not mention forced labor and considers trafficking (item 41a) only in the misleading context of Article 10 (protection of the family). The author acknowledges that in Austria there exist criminal law provisions to prevent the sexual exploitation of women by pimps, traffickers, or procurers. ^{NOTEREF _Ref341178537 \h \* MERGEFORMAT} However, as shown below, actual protection is inefficient. In addition, there are deficiencies in the law, as trafficking within the State Party territory is ignored by Austrian law, although this is a human rights violation, ^{NOTEREF _Ref341178537 \h \* MERGEFORMAT} too, and although “being trafficked within one’s country, as opposed to being trafficked internationally, is associated with higher risk of rights violation”. ^{NOTEREF _Ref341178537 \h \* MERGEFORMAT}
Lacking protection against trafficking into prostitution and sexual exploitation is illustrated by the following figures:

• 
  Regarding the European Union, ILO in 2012 states an average of estimated 1.5 persons in forced labor per 1,000 inhabitants. ^{NOTEREF _Ref341178537 \h \* MERGEFORMAT} For a population of 8.4 million this amounts to estimated 12,600 persons. Of them, 22% are sexually exploited, 79% of them adults, mostly women, which results in estimated 2,200 sexually exploited and/or trafficked women (7.5% of all women in sex work). Due to its geographical location at the centre of Europe, Austria is affected by human trafficking as both a transit and destination country, whence the actual number of victims may be higher.
  
• 
  The deplorable situation of these victims is made worse by police corruption. By data of the International Organization for Migration, worldwide 8.9% of trafficked or otherwise sexually exploited women report police officers as clients; ^{NOTEREF _Ref341178537 \h \* MERGEFORMAT} in Austria these are estimated 200 women. Thereby, as reported by UNODC, ^{NOTEREF _Ref341178537 \h \* MERGEFORMAT} police officers may collude with pimps, who offer them free sex with the victims of exploitation. As the officer cannot assume the consent of the victim, such behavior is rape. ^{NOTEREF _Ref341178537 \h \* MERGEFORMAT}
  
• 
  However, law enforcement apparently ignores these crimes: In 2011 federal police suspected 123 crimes of sexual exploitation and/or trafficking; courts sentenced 20 perpetrators. ^{NOTEREF _Ref341178537 \h \* MERGEFORMAT} Thus, criminal law is enforced in only 20 of 2,200 cases of sexual exploitation (0.9%), whereas justice is denied to the remaining 99.1% of victims, as pimps and traffickers enjoy factual impunity.
  

In addition, Austrian authorities are not prepared to adequately identify and support victims of trafficking or sexual exploitation.

• 
  The author acknowledges that victims may claim compensation under the Victims of Crimes Act (not mentioned by the State Party). However, they need to be legal residents, a condition that cross-border trafficked women may not meet. ^{NOTEREF _Ref341178537 \h \* MERGEFORMAT}
  
• 
  Moreover, as the above statistics illustrates, 99.1% of victims are not identified. However, if a victim is not recognized as such, because the trafficker is not prosecuted, the victim is not entitled to compensation.
  
• 
  As the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women noted with respect to Austria, ^{NOTEREF _Ref341178537 \h \* MERGEFORMAT} trafficked women, who could rescue themselves and applied for asylum, often were not identified as victims, as the “officers who are in charge of asylum applications in the State party are not sufficiently trained to identify victims of trafficking.”
  
• 
  There is also a systematic problem, as the political discourse worldwide does not clearly distinguish between voluntary sex work, trafficking and sexual exploitation. ^{NOTEREF _Ref341178537 \h \* MERGEFORMAT} As a consequence, if a trafficked woman with an illegal residency status reports to police that she has been trafficked and exploited in illegal prostitution, she faces administrative fines for illegal prostitution, which she necessarily admitted, and she has to leave the country, as she admitted illegal immigration, too. Authorities perceive her as a lawbreaker, whose testimony is not considered as sufficient proof against alleged perpetrators.
  

The following case illustrates this problem: ^{NOTEREF _Ref341178537 \h \* MERGEFORMAT} In January 2011, a woman was deported to Nigeria, who allegedly was a victim of trafficking and sexually exploited by pimps in Vienna. She witnessed against the traffickers and pimps, but her complaints about her situation had no consequences, except for putting her under considerable risk of retaliation by pimps. However, Austrian authorities did not protect her and denied that she could be a possible victim of an international crime. Instead they treated her as an illegal immigrant and prostitute.

3. Denial of Work to Asylum-Seekers (Article 6, § 1)

In Austria, asylum seekers are not permitted to accept any “regular” form of employment, except begging or prostitution (section 7 Federal Support to Asylum Seekers Act). Although this has been criticized in the public discourse, Austria is not willing to ease access to the labor market. As this Committee stressed (General Comment 18/2005 at § 1), the right to work is essential for realizing other human rights and forms an inseparable and inherent part of human dignity. The denial of any opportunity for decent work over a time span of several years does not respect human dignity and leads to social exclusion.
Further, support for asylum seekers is far from adequate. The author acknowledges that Austria shelters asylum seekers in refugee camps and provides for their basic needs; however:

• 
  Spending per refugee is 41% below the Austrian subsistence level. Thereby, Austrian subsistence level is defined by the minimal monthly per capita social assistance benefits, in 2010 this was 744 €. ^{NOTEREF _Ref341178537 \h \* MERGEFORMAT} By comparison, Austria provides in average 439 € per month in cash and in kind for each asylum seeker. ^{NOTEREF _Ref341178537 \h \* MERGEFORMAT}
  
• 
  Without sufficient income asylum seekers face undue constraints. They cannot afford legal assistance during their asylum procedure. (They receive free legal aid, but at poor quality, resulting usually in deportation.) They are also de facto restricted in participation in the social and cultural life. This amounts to social exclusion.
  
• 
  Moreover, the situation of asylum seeking women is unacceptable, as Austria does not protect them against violence. For women living in refugee camps, rape by security guards or inmates is a permanent threat. ^{NOTEREF _Ref341178537 \h \* MERGEFORMAT} Thus, for asylum seeking women the right to work is a prerequisite for a life in dignity, as they need income to obtain adequate and safe housing.
  
• 
  The excessive length of proceedings to handle asylum applications causes uncertainty and suffering, too. Therefore, asylum seekers should be given a chance to become integrated in Austrian society. This may mean that the constitutional protection of private and family life would hinder their expulsion.
  

4.