Originally, and certainly, the Palermo Protocol is connected to the organized crime treaty, as one of the intentions was to combat organized crime. However, the definition I was speaking of is very broad. I think the trafficking definition should be used because it is the most protective of victims; it's very extensive, as I pointed out. It does have a human rights perspective in terms of the victims, including all of the different means used to coerce and to get victims, basically, trafficked. So from that angle, we are pleased with the definition.
Certainly, the protocol has some gaps. It's really only the floor for certain things. For example, in article 6, in regard to some of the services for victims, it says “shall consider” instead of just “shall” in terms of the language used in the protocol. So it's not strong enough in saying that the countries must deliver certain services. To that extent, we would be concerned that countries are sometimes not delivering everything that's in the protocol, because there is some wiggle room in the protocol. But again, as a floor, we certainly see it as something that's helpful. And the protocol is just meant to be a basic international guideline or standard now, rather than the maximum human rights protection that can be afforded.
So I think there are some gaps that can be filled in. But from our perspective, it does have a definition that is protective of trafficking victims' human rights.