PROTECTION
The government continued to provide limited specialized services for trafficking victims. Some government institutions had informal victim referral procedures, but most government officials lacked clear guidelines for identifying and referring victims to care services. Immigration agents continued to ask detained migrants if they were trafficking victims and lacked in-depth screening mechanisms. NGOs were critical of the government’s ability to accurately identify trafficking victims among vulnerable populations, such as migrants. Anti-trafficking experts and people in prostitution reported officials often did not always differentiate between sex trafficking victims and women in prostitution—due in part to the overly broad anti-trafficking law—making victim identification statistics unreliable. The government reported identifying 1,570 Mexican trafficking victims but did not report how many were exploited in forced labor or sex trafficking. In 2013, in comparison, federal entities reported identifying and assisting over 1,000 victims, though a government-issued report cited two different victim identification numbers; this contradiction highlighted data integrity concerns.
It was unclear how many identified victims received particular services—such as shelter—and victim services in most parts of the country remained inadequate in light of the significant number of trafficking victims identified by NGOs and officials.The Special Prosecutor’s Office for Violence Against Women and Trafficking in Persons (FEVIMTRA) received 10 million pesos ($680,000) in 2014 to address the rights of assistance to female victims of extreme violence, including human trafficking. NGOs, many receiving foreign donor or private funding, provided the majority of specialized assistance. Coordination between federal, state, and local officials on victim services and case management was weak. The Mexican consular network in the United States provided support to 21 labor trafficking victims and an unknown number of sex trafficking victims in 2014. FEVIMTRA operated a high- security shelter in Mexico City for female victims of sex trafficking and other forms of extreme violence who were participating in the legal process against their exploiters.The shelter housed an unspecified number of trafficking victims for up to three months; victims were not allowed to leave the shelter alone, reportedly due to safety concerns. NGOs raised concerns this arrangement re-traumatized some victims, leading some victims to flee the

shelter. Government entities at the federal and state level provided some victims with emergency services, such as medical attention, food, and temporary lodging. Shelters for vulnerable children under the age of 13 and for female victims of violence did not report how many trafficking victims they assisted in 2014. Experts and victims cited the need for open shelters with specialized services for trafficking victims including access to psychosocial care and reintegration services, particularly job training. Government-funded services for male and forced labor victims were particularly weak. The national human rights commission (CNDH) reported cases of victims housed in inappropriate accommodations, such as migration detention centers, and noted the lack of services for victims with specific needs, such as drug addiction. A federal victim assistance protocol was drafted in 2014 but remained pending; some states also drafted victim care protocols.
Many victims were afraid to identify themselves as trafficking victims, and few sought legal remedies due to their fear of retribution from traffickers, the lack of specialized services, or a lack of trust in authorities. Mexican law has provisions to protect victims from punishment for unlawful acts committed as a direct result of being subjected to trafficking, but there were reports some victims were punished in practice. Some officials transferred victims to the National Institute of Migration (INM) for detention and deportation due to victims’ legal status or lack of formal identification as trafficking victims. Foreign trafficking victims could legally be eligible for refugee status independent of any decision to testify against suspected traffickers, though civil society reported this legal alternative to deportation was often not provided in practice. Many foreign trafficking victims returned to their countries of origin after giving testimony, in some cases due to a lack of adequate shelter or information about their rights. INM reported providing food and migratory assistance to 29 foreign trafficking victims in 2014 and issued 25 authorizations to remain in the country on the basis of humanitarian issues—which could be renewable on a yearly basis depending on the victims’ specific circumstances—compared with 47 victims assisted in 2013. In some cases, authorities shared victims’ names and case details with the press. It was unclear if any trafficking victims were awarded restitution.

PREVENTION
Federal and state authorities engaged in a range of anti-trafficking prevention efforts, though overall prevention efforts were inadequate given the magnitude of the problem.The interagency anti-trafficking commission met twice a year to coordinate federal government efforts and released a report on 2013 national anti- trafficking efforts.The government released a national action plan for 2014-2018, but did not dedicate additional funds to implement the plan. Experts reported interagency coordination at the federal and state levels was uneven, though several jurisdictions reported increased  anti-trafficking activity.
Twenty-two states had state-level anti-trafficking committees, of which 12 were launched or reconfigured in 2014, and which varied in effectiveness. Federal and state governments engaged in a variety of awareness-raising activities, including by distributing educational materials—including in indigenous languages and sign language—and publicizing phone numbers to report trafficking crimes anonymously. CNDH conducted extensive anti-trafficking training and awareness sessions for a range of audiences. The Federal District government provided funding to an anti-trafficking hotline for the capital.Authorities eliminated charges for documents

allowing Guatemalan and Belizean citizens to work along the southern border, and established an additional center in Guatemala to register people for the card. Authorities did not report efforts to criminally punish fraudulent labor recruiters. Officials continued efforts to prevent child sex tourism through training sessions, partnering with the tourism chamber of commerce, and distributing awareness materials to reduce the demand for sexual exploitation of children in tourism destinations.While the government investigated some child sex tourism cases, it did not report how many child sex tourists it prosecuted or convicted, if any, and some NGOs alleged that some corrupt local officials allowed child sex tourism to occur.Authorities reported no efforts to reduce the demand for forced labor.The government provided anti-trafficking training or guidance for its diplomatic personnel.