FROM BONDAGE TO FREEDOM 82 trafficking and their repatriation to their country of origin are optional in nature. The Protocol only calls for adopting legislative or other measures permitting victims of trafficking to remain in the territories of States temporarily or permanently “in appropriate cases” with appropriate consideration being given to humanitarian and compassionate factors. Similarly, in the case of repatriation while the Protocol notes that return “shall preferably be voluntary”, the travaux preparatoires effectively render this concession meaningless by indicating that these words are to be understood as not placing any obligation on the returning State Party. Law Enforcement and Border Control A study of provisions of the Protocol shows that border control is clearly at the heart of the Protocol. The focus is on the interception of traffickers rather than the identification and protection of victims. This concern is elucidated by the fact that this part is worded in obligatory terms whereas the part on protection is worded in optional terms. This clearly shows that border control measures take precedence over protection measures. Another major weakness of the law enforcement /border control provisions of the Protocol is their failure to address the issue of how victims of trafficking are to be identified. The regime created by the Convention and its two Protocols is such that the trafficked persons are accorded greater protection than the smuggled migrants. Provision of protection to the trafficked persons involves a greater financial and administrative burden and therefore creates a clear incentive for the national authorities to identify irregular migrants as smuggled rather than trafficked. The Protocol does not address the possibility of individuals being wrongly identified and thereby passed on the opportunity to include some kind of counter-incentive in the form of detailed guidance on the identification process. The resulting lacuna is likely to seriously compromise the practical value of Protocol’s protection provisions206. Further, lack of any kind of review or supervisory mechanism is a significant limitation, which will undermine the efficacy of the Protocol. Preventing Trafficking 206 Supra note 11, p.995. 207 Ibid.