committed (para 55 and 57). Forms of punishment may include the arbitrary deprivation of nationality (para 41). The troubled history of arbitrary deprivation of nationality is rooted in histories of racism, positioned at the very heart of attempts to exclude and limit the application of human rights law on discriminatory grounds. Arbitrary deprivation of nationality is an administrative sanction that not only violates the nonpunishment principle, but also increases risks of trafficking or re-trafficking. The links between statelessness and heightened risks of trafficking are well documented. Exposing victims and potential victims to such risks is a failure of States’ to uphold their legal obligations of due diligence and an egregious failure of protection (para 42). The non-punishment principle is also intimately related to the obligation of States to identify and protect victims, recognized as part of the positive obligations deriving from the obligation to comply with article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, ratified by Your Excellency’s government on 8 March 1953. In a recent Judgement considering the application of the principle of non-punishment (V.C.L. and A.N. v. United Kingdom), the European Court of Human Rights has noted that: “In order for the prosecution of a victim or potential victim of trafficking to demonstrate respect for the freedoms guaranteed by Article 4, his or her early identification is of paramount importance. It follows that, as soon as the authorities are aware, or ought to be aware, of circumstances giving rise to a credible suspicion that an individual suspected of having committed a criminal offence may have been trafficked or exploited, he or she should be assessed promptly by individuals trained and qualified to deal with victims of trafficking” 45 Finally, the Special Rapporteur on trafficking has also raised concerns in relation to the separation of children from parents. Where punishment of a victims of trafficking includes the separation of a child from his or her parent or guardian, the child’s right to family life is engaged, which includes the right to not be arbitrarily separated from his or her parent or guardian and to maintain contact, if separation occurs (A/HRC/47/34 para. 40). The Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Children and Armed Conflict has highlighted States’ legal obligations not to “doubly victimize” children who have been abducted, recruited, used and exposed to violence at an early age. Of particular relevance is the requirement under the Trafficking in Persons Protocol, to take into account the age, gender and special needs of victims of trafficking in persons, in particular the rights of the child, including in the context of forced criminality. That includes the obligations of States parties to ensure the right of the child to be heard and that the best interests of the child are taken as a primary consideration, also taking into consideration the fact that, in the context of international migration, children may be in particularly disadvantaged and vulnerable situations. 46 As it is our responsibility, under the mandates provided to us by the Human Rights Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention, we would be grateful for your observations on the following matters: 45 46 European Court of Human Rights, V.C.L. and A.N. v. United Kingdom, (applications No. 74603/12 and No. 77587/12), judgment of 16 February 2021, para. 160. Joint general comment No. 3 of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families/No. 22 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (2017) on the general principles regarding the human rights of children in the context of international migration, para. 23. 11