rise to a credible suspicion that he had been trafficked”.13 In Rantsev, the Court had noted the known prevalent context of young foreign women being forced to work in the sex industry in Cyprus as a factor triggering the positive obligation to protect potential victims of trafficking.14 The Court has therefore concluded that “certain aspects” of evidence or applicants’ accounts “should have raised concerns that [they] might have been a victim of trafficking” and that “these concerns should only have intensified when it became apparent that [they were] a minor”.15 6. This Court has previously noted the relevance of the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings (ECAT) in interpreting States' obligations under Article 4 ECHR.16 In addition to the early identification requirement, the relevant authorities should pay attention to a victim’s capacity to consent to forms of exploitation and emphasise that the ‘means’ of facilitating trafficking in human beings is not relevant in cases concerning child victims of trafficking. Moreover, ECAT requires States to grant victims a recovery and reflection period during which they cannot be subject to expulsion. This period must be granted as soon as there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person may be a victim of trafficking.17 ECAT also requires States of which a victim is a national, or in which they held permanent residence at the time of entry into the receiving State's territory, to facilitate and accept their return without undue delay.18 7. Once a serious indication of possible trafficking is brought to the State’s notice, contextualised with vulnerability (including age and gender), the State is required to respond in an urgent and serious manner under Article 4 ECHR.19 The Court is invited to assess whether the relevant national authorities were aware or ought to have been aware of a real and immediate risk of being trafficked in light of relevant indicators of vulnerability to exploitation. 8. This must also be taken into account when deciding on the relevant measures in respect of states’ restitutionary obligations. Central to those obligations is the nonpunishment principle, which requires States to provide for not imposing penalties on trafficking victims for unlawful activities they were compelled to commit.20 9. The non-punishment principle is part of the State's duty to take operational measures to protect victims of trafficking. The teleological aims of positive obligations under Article 4 ECHR, the Court has said, are to prevent victims from further harm and to facilitate their recovery, both of which are undermined by the punishment of victims. 10. The non-punishment principle is also codified in Article 26 ECAT. The Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) has affirmed that the concept of “punishment” in this context is broad, encompassing not only criminal penalties but also administrative sanctions and re-entry prohibitions.21 In its 2021 evaluation report on the United Kingdom, GRETA expressed concern that the principle was being applied too narrowly, and that enforcement officers frequently 13 V.C.L. and A.N. v. the United Kingdom, op. cit., § 176. Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, op. cit., § 294. 15 V.C.L and A.N. v. UK, op. cit., § 181. 16 ibid., § 150. 17 ibid., Article 13. 18 ibid., Article 16. This provision is designed to ensure that victims are not left stranded in the destination country. See also: Palermo Protocol, op. cit., Article 8(1). 19 F.M. v. Russia, nos. op. cit., § 248. 20 ECAT, op. cit., Article 26. See also V.C.L. and A.N. v. the United Kingdom, op. cit. 21 GRETA, Guidance Note on the Recovery and Reflection Period, THB-GRETA(2024) (CoE, September 2024); GRETA, Report Concerning the Implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings by France (2nd evaluation round) GRETA(2017)17, §§ 247, 250. 14 2