PROSECUTION
The government maintained efforts to investigate and prosecute trafficking crimes; however, it did not promulgate regulations for the PACOTIP Act, leaving South Africa with inadequate anti- trafficking prohibitions.The Sexual Offenses Act (SOA) prohibits the sex trafficking of children and adults and prescribes penalties of up to 20 years’ imprisonment, which are sufficiently stringent and commensurate with those prescribed for other serious offenses, such as rape.The Basic Conditions of Employment Act of 1997 (BCEA) prohibits forced labor; in 2014, the government amended it to extend prohibitions to the informal sector and doubled prescribed maximum penalties for forced labor for both children and adults from three to six years’ imprisonment. The Children’s Amendment Act prescribes penalties of five years to life imprisonment or fines for the use, procurement, or offer of a child for slavery, commercial sexual exploitation, or to commit crimes. The Prevention of Organized Crime Act of 1998 is sometimes used in combination with the SOA to add additional charges—including money laundering, racketeering, and criminal gang activity—and stiffer penalties against offenders. Promulgation of the PACOTIP Act signed by the president in July 2013 remained pending. In 2014, the State Law Advisor approved implementing regulations finalized by SAPS, DSD, DOJ/VSD, and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA); however, the Department of Home Affairs’ (DHA) draft regulations remained under review, preventing formal promulgation of the act during the reporting period. Government entities with implementing regulations made significant efforts to train staff on these regulations in 2014.
The government convicted three sex traffickers and initiated prosecutions of 19 additional suspected sex traffickers—a slight increase compared with the conviction of three offenders and prosecution of 12 suspected sex traffickers in 2013. In November 2014, the Graskop Magistrate’s Court convicted a prominent businessman for the sex trafficking of five Mozambican girls under the SOA and Children’s Act and sentenced him to eight life terms—the most severe sentence for a trafficking crime handed down in South Africa. In March 2015, the High Court upheld the trafficking and rape convictions of an offender found guilty in the previous reporting period. Prosecution of 17 alleged sex traffickers remained ongoing from previous reporting periods, including the 2011 “Point Durban” case. Officials investigated

cases involving Nigerian, Thai, and Chinese traffickers, but the government has never successfully prosecuted larger, international syndicates involving these or Russian or Bulgarian traffickers who dominate the sex trade in several South African cities. In a slight improvement, the government initiated prosecution of one Thai and three Nigerian suspected traffickers.
While the majority of trafficking victims in South Africa are labor trafficking victims, the government did not initiate prosecution or obtain convictions of any labor traffickers in 2014.The government did not comprehensively monitor or investigate forced child labor or the labor trafficking of adults in the agricultural, mining, construction, and fishing sectors. DOL inspectors continued to use the BCEA as their core enforcement mechanism and mostly failed to consider trafficking crimes within this workload.The first prosecution of a domestic servitude case, initiated in October 2013 against a father and son in Western Cape, remained pending prosecution.
The government failed to prosecute or convict any officials allegedly complicit in trafficking offenses. In one case, SAPS pledged to investigate and reassigned a SAPS officer after he allegedly compromised the safety of a victim. Stakeholders reported the failure of police to proactively identify sex trafficking victims or pursue investigations and noted prosecutors were often unwilling to take difficult cases. NGOs reported police officers solicited commercial sex acts from victims.The government did not report efforts to investigate a South African diplomat suspected of engaging in forced labor abroad in the previous reporting period; however, government regulations do not allow the Department of International Relations and Cooperation to discipline its diplomatic personnel for misconduct outside of their principle job duties.
In anticipation of the PACOTIP Act’s eventual promulgation, the government increased training efforts, which focused on the pending implementing regulations. The South Africa Judicial Education Institute held eight four-day training sessions, which reached 275 sitting magistrates; DOJ led trainings in each province for inter-departmental staff. NPA staff trained over 240 prosecutors and 90 investigative police assigned to various “Hawks” units around the country. SAPS trained 80 officials in several provinces. DHA and DOL included trainings developed by an international organization within their academy trainings for new staff. DSD held anti-trafficking trainings on DSD’s implementing regulations for nearly 350 staff across the country.

PROTECTION
The government continued efforts to protect victims. DSD continued oversight of and funding to 13 accredited multipurpose shelters, which hosted 41 victims—a significant decrease compared with 93 victims in 2013; officials speculated shelter staff ’s inconsistent reporting was to blame for the reported decrease. DSD continued oversight of 17 NGO-run safe houses designed to temporarily shelter victims before they reach an accredited shelter. The DSD ran a nine-week rehabilitation program to address the psycho-social well-being of victims and paid for the stay of victims at rehabilitation centers for overcoming drug addiction.There was only one shelter available for male trafficking victims in the country, located in Gauteng, which was difficult to access for men victimized in other parts of the country. The Thuthuzela Care Centers provided crisis care to victims of sexual violence, including potential trafficking victims.The government assisted child trafficking victims in facilities for vulnerable children, without provision of specific