Between January and December 2024, at least 142 people faced judicial proceedings in the EU for helping migrants. The majority were charged with facilitation of entry, stay or transit or migrant smuggling (depending on how the crime is defined in the national legislation). The figures stem from media monitoring and research conducted by the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM) throughout 2024.

This is most likely an undercount, as statistical and official data concerning those who are being accused, charged, or convicted for smuggling and related offences is often lacking. Many cases go unreported by the media or because people fear retaliation, especially migrants themselves. In addition, some cases reported by the media might not have been detected by our alert system.

Nonetheless, this data confirms a concerning, ongoing trend observed in previous reports. At least 117 people were criminalised in the EU in 2023. At least 102 in 2022, and at least 89 between January 2021 and March 2022.

Silvia Carta, Advocacy Officer at PICUM and author of the study, said: “This is the fourth year in a row that we document increasing levels of criminalisation of both migrants and people who help them. And what we’re able to monitor is just the tip of the iceberg.”

Our media monitoring found that most people criminalised were in Greece (62), Italy (29), Poland (17) and France (17). Other cases were found in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Malta, and Latvia.

Among those criminalised, 88 people were criminalised for rescuing or helping migrants in distress at sea. 21 were criminalised for providing food, water or clothing to migrants; 17 for protests and manifestations. For instance, in Poland, five people providing humanitarian aid at the Poland-Belarus border are facing potential sentences of up to five years in prison.

The average length of the proceedings recorded by our media monitoring is three years, but in several cases the actual length can be much longer. In one case that resulted in an acquittal in 2024, a woman faced nearly ten years of legal proceedings after being criminalised in 2014 for purchasing train tickets for a group of Syrian refugees in Sicily, Italy.

In 2024, court proceedings concluded for 43 of the 142 individuals criminalised. Among them, the vast majority of people (41) were acquitted or had their charges dropped. Even if a case may end in an acquittal, trials still have heavy consequences on people’s finances, personal life, and psychological wellbeing.

People criminalised for crossing borders irregularly

Not only solidarity with migrants is being criminalised under counter-smuggling legislation, but also the very act of migrating. According to our monitoring, between January 2024 and December 2024, at least 91 people in Italy, Greece and Spain were criminalised for the sole act of crossing borders irregularly.

People who are criminalised for migrating irregularly are punished twice: they face harsh legal proceedings and, in two thirds of cases, are imprisoned even before their trial begins. In Italy, Maysoon Majidi, a Kurdish-Iranian activist and filmmaker, spent 300 days in pre-trial detention on trafficking charges because she had distributed water to passengers on a boat.

This contrasts sharply with criminalisation of solidarity cases involving EU nationals, where pre-trial detention is rarely applied.

Silvia Carta said: “The criminalisation of solidarity with migrants is deeply tied with the criminalisation of migration itself. These are not two separate issues but are in fact a continuum of restrictive migration policies that make border crossing unsafe and create a hostile environment against those who are considered to have entered in an irregular manner.”

Most people facing criminal charges due to crossing borders irregularly (84%) are accused of steering a boat or driving a vehicle across a border, or of allegedly assisting in managing passengers on board. Often, the person was simply a passenger, or distributed food and water, used a phone and a map while at sea, or even helped others in difficult situations, for instance when a boat was about to capsize.

In Greece, an Egyptian fisherman and his 15-year-old child were charged with smuggling, simply because the father reluctantly agreed to pilot their boat to afford the journey. The father was placed in pre-trial detention and sentenced to 280 years in prison. Not only was the child separated from his father, but he now also faces the same charges in a juvenile court.

In both Italy and Greece, shipwreck survivors were prosecuted as smugglers.

The new EU Facilitation Directive

Criminalisation trends are likely to worsen due to a proposal to revise the current EU legislation on migrant smuggling (EU Facilitation Directive). The proposal from the European Commission, currently under negotiation in the European Parliament, leaves the door open to the criminalisation of humanitarian assistance and could expand the grounds for criminalising migrants.

Silvia Carta said, “The proposed Facilitation Directive risks leading to more people being arrested or brought to trial for helping people in need, and to migrants themselves being accused of smuggling. As the negotiations advance, the European Parliament must push for the strongest safeguards so that no one faces prosecution simply because they crossed a border or helped people in need”.

NOTES TO THE EDITORS:

• The report is available here. It includes the full list of monitored cases, detail on the most significant cases and more information on counter-smuggling legislation.
• In addition to criminalisation cases against individual human right defenders, activists and people crossing borders, the report also includes additional cases of administrative sanctions and non-judicial harassment of NGOs.
• The draft EU Facilitation Directive is a set of measures announced by the European Commission in November 2023, which aim at countering migrant smuggling. The measures focus on criminalising and punishing so-called smugglers (often, migrants themselves) without tackling the root causes of smuggling (i.e. the lack of safe regular routes for people to come to Europe). The new proposal, largely validated by the EU Council in December 2024, fails to introduce a clear and binding exception from criminalisation for humanitarian assistance by NGOs, family members or migrants themselves. Our position on the proposal can be found here.

On 8th April, MEPs of the civil liberties committee LIBE are set to start debating the European Commission’s proposed rules to tackle migrant smuggling (proposed EU Directive on the facilitation of irregular entry, stay or transit).

The MEPs will discuss the draft report led by socialist MEP Birgit Sippel, which will form the basis of the Parliament’s negotiating position when entering final negotiations with the Commission and Council.

The draft report includes a legally binding provision that would exempt humanitarian assistance from criminalisation. This element is particularly welcome as both the Commission’s proposal and the Council’s negotiating position confined this exemption to a non-legally binding provision, de facto leaving the door open to the criminalisation of solidarity with migrants.

PICUM has been documenting a steady rise of criminalisation of solidarity with migrants in the past few years: at least 117 people were criminalised for helping migrants in 2023; at least 102 people in 2022, and at least 89 people between January 2021 and March 2022.

The LIBE draft report also removes problematic provisions included in the Commission’s proposal, including:

• references to the “likelihood of causing serious harm” as a constitutive element of the facilitation crime, even when the accused person hasn’t received any financial or material benefit. This means that parents who have to undertake perilous journeys with their children would be at risk of prosecution, just as survivors of a shipwreck, if they had accepted to steer the boat out of necessity.  
• a new offence of “publicly instigating” irregular entry, transit, or stay, which was sharply criticised by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, amongst others, for the serious risk that this provision would be used against civil society organisations and have a chilling effect on the much-needed provision of information and services to migrants.

Despite these welcome elements, the current LIBE draft report :

• while clearly exempting ‘humanitarian assistance’ from criminalisation, still de facto leaves the exact definition of what can be considered a humanitarian act to member states. The current text only provides a non-binding definition, which encompasses various acts like assistance to family members and people in distress, or the provision of legal and medical assistance. As a result, member states would still be able to criminalise migrants, people acting in solidarity and service providers;
• fails to clearly protect people from criminalisation if they obtained a licit financial benefit when helping someone in an irregular situation. This means that landlords, taxi drivers and other people providing services traditionally offered in exchange of money would still risk being criminalised, similar to migrants who accept to steer a boat to obtain a reduction on their passage;
• does not clearly protect migrants accused of smuggling themselves, often because they simply were on a boat, distributed food and water, or even helped others on a boat at risk of capsizing;
• does not rule out the criminalisation of irregular stay.

Silvia Carta, Advocacy Officer at the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, said, “This text is a first positive step forward in the protection of solidarity actions, but more could be done to prevent the criminalisation of migrants themselves. We stand ready to work with the European Parliament so that no one faces prosecution simply because they crossed a border or helped people in need”.

The European Parliament’s plenary is expected to vote on its negotiating position in summer 2025.

NOTES TO THE EDITORS:

• The new proposed Facilitation Directive is a redraft of proposed changes to the law criminalising the facilitation of irregular migration (2002 Facilitation Directive), which has also been used to criminalise migrants and people acting in solidarity with them.
• Our position on the new proposed Facilitation Directive can be found here. This briefing includes a table comparing provisions of the 2002 Facilitation Directive with those included in the new draft Facilitation Directive.
• A recent study by the research service of the European Parliament about already found that the Commission’s proposal risks leading to increased criminalisation of migrants and those who help them. More information in our press release.
• Media inquiries can be sent to Gianluca Cesaro on gianluca.cesaro@picum.org

On 27th February, the research service of the European Parliament published a new study about the European Commission’s proposed rules to tackle migrant ‘smuggling’, which finds that they risk leading to increased criminalisation of migrants and those who help them.

The study focuses on the draft “Facilitation Directive”, which aims to criminalise the facilitation of irregular entry, stay or transit in the EU.

It is remarkable to note that the European Parliament conducted this study as a response to the Commission’s failure to assess human rights risks before proposing the new rules. At the time of this writing, the European Commission has failed to conduct a proper impact assessment of the proposed Facilitation Directive. The authors of the study recommend that the Commission withdraw the proposal until a proper impact assessment is carried out.

The study finds that the proposed Directive exacerbates the conflation of criminal law and migration control. The authors ask to refocus the proposal on combating organised criminal networks as required by international law – instead of expanding the definition of the crime of “smuggling” to activities not linked to organised crime, which would lead to the criminalisation of migrants and people who help them. The study reflects civil society’s concerns about the lack of a clear, binding clause that would exempt service provision and solidarity from criminalisation.

Silvia Carta, Advocacy Officer at the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, said, “This study reflects what many human rights actors have been denouncing all along: the proposed Facilitation Directive risks leading to more people being arrested, fined or brought to trial for helping people in need, and to migrants themselves being accused of smuggling”.

The study came out after the EU Council voted its negotiating position on the draft Directive last December, also failing to exempt solidarity from criminalisation in a binding article. The European Parliament is expected to vote on its own negotiating position in June 2025.

NOTES TO THE EDITORS:

• The new proposed Facilitation Directive is a redraft of proposed changes to the law criminalising the facilitation of irregular migration (2002 Facilitation Directive), which has also been used to criminalise migrants and people acting in solidarity with them.
• Our position on the new proposed Facilitation Directive can be found here. This briefing includes a table comparing provisions of the 2002 Facilitation Directive with those included in the new draft Facilitation Directive.
• Media inquiries can be sent to Gianluca Cesaro on gianluca.cesaro@picum.org

On 13th December 2024, the EU Council will vote on new EU rules about migrant smuggling which would leave the door open to the criminalisation of migrants and solidarity with migrants. The vote marks the Council’s position on the new draft Facilitation Directive, a European Commission proposal to counter migrant smuggling by expanding the crime definition and upping prison sentences.

The text set to be voted by the Council also fails to introduce a legally binding provision that would exempt acts of solidarity with people in an irregular situation from criminalisation. Instead, the Council will vote to simply invite member states not to criminalise humanitarian acts in a non-binding recital. Without a legal requirement that prohibits the criminalisation of migration and solidarity, there is genuine concern that member states will increase legal procedures against migrants themselves and people helping migrants.

PICUM has been documenting a steady rise of criminalisation of solidarity with migrants in the past few years: at least 117 people were criminalised for helping migrants in 2023; at least 102 people in 2022, and at least 89 people between January 2021 and March 2022.

The text to be voted by the Council underlines that the Facilitation Directive only provides for minimum rules, hinting at the possibility for member states to increase the level of criminalisation under their national legislation if they wish so.

Marta Gionco, Senior Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said: “European governments have been increasingly cracking down on migrants and on people who help them. This vote goes in the direction of more criminalisation, with more people expected to face trials, fines and prison sentences simply for helping other people.”

The trend towards more criminalisation would also risk affecting the very victims of smuggling.

International law is clear that migrants who are victims of smuggling should not be criminalised. The current law already fails to provide any protection, and the new text only mentions this in a non-binding recital, effectively leaving the door open to the criminalisation of migrants themselves, and their family members.

The European Parliament is expected to discuss its own position on the draft Facilitation Directive at the start of 2025. The Parliament and the Council will then have to reach an agreement between their respective positions, before a final text is approved.

On 26^th November 2024, the Swedish government presented the findings of a public inquiry outlining how a potential new law could oblige some public sector workers to denounce undocumented people they come in contact with to the immigration authorities.

According to the inquiry, the Swedish government should oblige the following governmental agencies in Sweden to automatically report undocumented people to the Police Authority as they come in contact with them: the Public Employment Service, Social Insurance Agency, Prison and Probation Service, Enforcement Agency, Pensions Agency and Tax Agency. The Swedish police may then pass on the information to the Migration Agency or the Security Service. It also proposes that the Swedish Economic Crime Authority and the Prosecution Authority should be obliged to provide information upon request from an enforcement agency.

The inquiry proposes exemptions for health services, schools and social services.

The government’s initiative to launch this public inquiry (included in the government’s coalition programme) had been heavily and widely criticised by several actors, including university teachers, welfare professionals, health care workers, teachers, municipal workers and library staff.

All denounce that mandatory reporting would lead to discrimination and stigmatisation, and fuel growing racism. Public workers would have to act as border guards and compromise their professional independence and integrity.

The public inquiry may form the basis of a new law proposal by the Swedish government in the next months.

Michele LeVoy, Director of the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, said: “Contrary to the inquiry’s claims, reporting obligations always have significant and harmful consequences for both individuals and society. At a minimum, they foster a climate of fear and hostility, undermining trust in public institutions, while violating Sweden’s human rights commitments. Exemptions will not mitigate these harms. We stand with national partners in urging the Swedish government to reject this reporting obligation and protect the principles of human rights.”

John Stauffer, acting Executive Director at Civil Rights Defenders, said, “Despite exemptions, this proposal risks fueling the fear of being reported, which is already today prevents undocumented migrants from accessing their rights. Rights must be accessible in practice. Realising the right to health, education, housing, protection, and an adequate standard of living requires that people feel able to claim their rights without fear.”

Hannah Laustiola, Executive Director of Doctors of the World Sweden, said, “While we are relieved that there is no proposal of a reporting obligation for health care personnel, the risk for negative consequences of a reporting obligation remains as long as there are institutions bound by the obligation. On the one hand, there is a risk that undocumented migrants, who already live in fear of deportation, will not be reached by the information that their right to health care is unchanged, and on the other hand, we see that the mere proposal of such a law has rendered public servants prone to act in violation of existing laws of classified information and the right to health.”

Ulrika Modéer, Secretary General of the Swedish Red Cross, said, “We welcome that schools, healthcare, and social services are not included in the obligation to provide information in the presented proposal, but some damage has already been done. But we must analyse further what it means that the Swedish Tax Agency will be obliged to provide information to the Police Authority, and what the Agency’s relationship to local social services will mean for victims of domestic violence. The government’s earlier lack of clarity in specifying the directives of the investigation has created fear among undocumented individuals, undermining trust in public institutions and civil society. Many avoid seeking help, which particularly impacts already vulnerable women and children.”

Jacob Lind, Postdoctoral researcher in international migration at Malmö University, said, “Much harm has already been done as the proposal has impacted the trust undocumented migrants have in society. A handful of public authorities, such as the tax and pension authorities, will now have a duty to report and this can still have implications for migrants’ access to their human rights. The main problem is that this new proposed legislation makes it easier to extend the list of authorities at a later stage with less work. The most positive takeaway from this is that collective mobilisation works. The politicians were telling the unions, civil society and other critics to wait for the investigation and then come with their criticism. But if the critics had listened to this and not resisted already before the investigation was published, it could have had a very different outcome.”

In Germany, a 1990 law obliges most public sector workers to report undocumented people to migration authorities. We spoke to Sarah Lincoln from Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte (Civil Liberties Association) to know more about this law and what civil society is doing to have it repealed.

Paragraph 87 of the German Residence Act forces any public authority, including social welfare offices, police, and courts, to report undocumented people they come in contact with to immigration enforcement.

The only exception to this rule was carved out in 2011 for schools and kindergartens.

What this obligation means in practice is that undocumented people avoid any contact with public authorities. They do not go to the police to report abuse or seek justice in courts. Many do not even go to the doctor or end up seeking care only in life-threatening situations.

When it comes to health care, the picture is complex: while undocumented people have a right to limited health care on paper, reporting obligations prevent them from accessing it.

According to the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act, undocumented migrants are entitled to limited medical services in the event of acute illnesses or painful conditions as well as during pregnancy and childbirth. Doctors are not obliged to report undocumented patients because they are not public workers (the German health care system is based on private insurances) and are therefore not covered by the Residence Act.

In fact, doctors are not permitted to report undocumented patients because of a legal duty to confidentiality.

But there have been instances where hospital staff reported undocumented patients nonetheless.

And going to the doctor without an insurance, as is the case for undocumented people, often means paying high medical fees and long-term debt. While emergency life-saving care would be provided, the hospital would still claim medical fees in the absence of insurance.

Getting treatment covered by the state requires a person asking for a permission from the social welfare offices, which are obliged to report undocumented people to the police or the migration office.

“The person would probably not even be able to leave the office. Police would come and arrest them and then put them in immigration detention”, said Lincoln.

As a result, undocumented people do not apply for official health care. Some seek treatment through charities and medical students who provide limited health care for free, in many cases severe Illnesses remain untreated.

In one case, a person who came to Germany from the Balkans in the early 90s and later lost his status, was unable to get a heart operation to avoid a (second) heart attack. In another case, a woman from Northern Africa who had been living in Germany for years was diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer by volunteering doctors and found herself with no option to get treatment.

Official data about health outcomes for undocumented people not accessing health care is lacking. But reports from organisations providing free health care and testimonies show that stories like the ones above are commonplace.

Campaigners and advocates have been fighting this law for years. In 2011, they managed to carve out an exception for schools and kindergartens. Since 2021, a coalition led by Doctors of the World and the Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte has been campaigning against paragraph 87 of the Residence Act to allow undocumented people to access health care without risking immigration enforcement. The campaign is being supported by over 80 civil society organisations, with the German doctors’ association and German Churches also repeatedly criticising reporting obligations.

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women noted in its 2023 concluding observations that Germany has no intention of repealing or amending section 87 of the Resident Act and called on Germany to reconsider its position.

In August 2021, Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte filed a complaint to the European Commission against paragraph 87 of the Residence Act, denouncing violations of the EU data protection rules (the General Data Protection Regulation) and the right to health care as enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

While the German government assured that they were considering the complaint (the proposal was in fact taken up by the German government in their coalition programme), they eventually backtracked and on the contrary passed new cuts to social benefits for asylum-seekers, bowing to a political climate ever more hostile to immigration.

Advocates also pursued strategic litigation in German courts, not without challenges. For undocumented complainants, access to courts remains difficult given the court also has an obligation to report to the immigration authorities. And procedures often last too long compared to their urgent medical needs.

Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte is currently awaiting to hear about the outcomes of a second complaint filed to the Commission in April 2024.

This press release is based on an article written by PICUM and published on Statewatch’s website.

A draft text proposed by the Belgian Council presidency, just published by Statewatch, furthers the criminalisation of irregular entry in the EU and threatens people helping migrants.

The text, which was presented to other EU member states on 31st May, is a redraft of proposed changes to the law criminalising the facilitation of irregular migration (2002 Facilitation Directive), which has also been used to criminalise migrants and people acting in solidarity with them.

The Belgian redraft will serve as the basis for further discussions within the Council, with Hungary now in the presidency role until the end of this year, in view of adopting a common position on the revised Facilitation Directive.

Marta Gionco, Senior Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said: “This text goes in the direction of more, not less, criminalisation of migrants and those who help them. Sadly, we can expect that the final Council position will follow this trend”

Financial benefit

The Belgian Council presidency’s redraft of the proposed Directive confirms that most member states are against the inclusion of a “financial or material benefit” element in the definition of the criminal offence of facilitation, as already indicated by a previous “non-paper”.

The presidency proposes dividing the offence into two parts. Firstly, for the facilitation of irregular entry into or transit through an EU member state, criminal sanctions would apply even if the facilitator did not receive any financial or material benefit. If there is financial or material benefit, this would be considered as an aggravating circumstance and be sanctioned with maximum sentences of at least three years of imprisonment.

Secondly, for the facilitation of irregular stay, criminal sanctions would apply only if there is financial or material benefit, as is currently the case under the 2002 Directive.

Humanitarian exemption

The presidency proposes two options for exempting humanitarian activity from criminal prosecution, in article 3, both of which are inspired by the Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs.

The first would clarify that the facilitation of irregular entry and transit does not include humanitarian actors or other assistance “aimed at meeting their basic human needs, in order to preserve their human dignity or physical and metal integrity.”

The second would require states to take “the necessary measures to ensure that humanitarian assistance, or any other assistance aimed at meeting their basic human needs, in order to preserve their human dignity or physical and metal integrity” are not criminalised.

As both options focus on “basic human needs”, acts of solidarity considered to go beyond such needs would still risk to be criminalised.

Limiting “basic human needs” and family members

The redraft further limits the scope of humanitarian exemptions in relation to “basic human needs” and “family members”, by defining both concepts in restrictive ways.

On “basic human needs”, the amended recital 7 would clarify that these only include food, personal hygiene and a place to stay, and ensuring that people are not put “in a state of degradation incompatible with human dignity.”

On “family members”, the text introduces a further limitation to recital 7, narrowing down the definition of family members (who would be exempt from criminalisation) only to spouses or unmarried partners in a stable relationship, parents, children and siblings.

Removal of public instigation offence

The Commission’s proposal includes the offence of “publicly instigating” irregular entry, transit, or stay, a move that was sharply criticised by UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, amongst others.

The Special Rapporteur highlighted the serious risk that this provision would be used against civil society organisations and have a chilling effect on the much-needed provision of information and services to migrants.

The presidency redraft deletes this offence. Member states had previously raised concerns about the proposal, with the German delegation commenting that “this affects freedom of expression and possibly also freedom of the press. This should be avoided.”

On 13 June, the Council of the European Union adopted its position on the Commission’s proposal for a revision of the Victims’ Rights Directive. The European Parliament already published its negotiating mandate in April. More than twelve years after the adoption of the Victims’ Rights Directive, this was an opportunity for governments to stand in solidarity with all victims of crime and to strengthen their rights and treatment. 

Regrettably, with this Council position, States have shown little willingness to commit to enhancing victim rights. They have largely rejected or diluted the EU Commission’s proposals, turning obligations into mere options. This undermines the scope of the Victims’ Rights Directive, leaving diverse crime victims inadequately protected and potentially harmed by the systems meant to protect them and deliver justice. 

For example, specific rights have been removed or weakened, including those relating to safe reporting of crime, court-based support services, access to medical care services, privacy protections, information and participation rights, offender compensation, legal remedies and review decisions. Additionally, the role of NGOs has been diminished by removing commitments to coordinate services – which are largely delivered by civil society – to one of mere consultation. This increases the risk of further stigma, discrimination, or prejudice. Therefore, clear and binding obligations for EU Member States are essential.

This position of the Council contrasts with the European Parliament’s report, which has adopted proposals that build an effective legislative framework for coordinated support, protection and justice. Thus, the European Parliament recognises that the actions and costs involved in this process are investments in our future. 

Every Euro spent on victims’ rights and services reduces the cost of crime and its emotional impact, and it also increases the ability of individuals to return to work, next to the efficiency and effectiveness of criminal proceedings. The European Parliament’s proposals commit to a thriving, safer, more resilient and more just society that upholds EU values, including fundamental rights. 

Member States have recently adopted the Directive on Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, the recast EU Directive on Combating and Preventing Trafficking in Human Beings and they are currently negotiating the Regulation laying down rules to prevent and combat Child Sexual Abuse. This shows a willingness to seek the advancement of the rights of specific victim groups, with a particular focus on children, women and victims of human trafficking. 

Member States should now affirm their commitment to all victims of crime regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, sex characteristics, age, disability, ethnicity, residence status,, and type of exploitation by enhancing minimum standards for all in the Victims’ Rights Directive Revision. There should be equal treatment of all victims of crime; no victim should be left behind. 

With a new Parliament and renewed vigour, we call on all EU Member States and the European Parliament to stand together – united for every victim in the EU. We call on them to genuinely explore solutions proposed by the European Commission and Parliament that will finally make victims’ rights a reality. We call on them to honour commitments to victims of crime; by adopting a strong Victims’ Rights Directive as the cornerstone legislation for all victims of crime, Member States can demonstrate their commitment to valuing fundamental human rights, human dignity and the European Union’s foundational values.

Signatories

1. AGE Platform Europe
2. Center for Reproductive Rights 
3. Child Helpline International
4. End FGM European Network
5. Eurochild
6. European Disability Forum (EDF)
7. European Forum for Restorative Justice (EFRJ)
8. European Sex Workers Alliance (ESWA)
9. ILGA Europe (the European region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association)
10. La Strada International
11. Missing Children Europe
12. Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM)
13. Validity Foundation
14. Trans Europe and Central Asia (TGEU)
15. Women Against Violence Europe (WAVE Network)
16. Advocates for Victims of Homicide (AdVIC) Ireland
17. A Associação Portuguesa de Apoio à Vítima (APAV Portugal)
18. Association for the Prevention and Handling of Violence in the Family (APHVF/ SPAVO) Cyprus
19. Associazione Italiana di Supporto Vittimologico 
20. Associazione Libra
21. ATENIN Spain
22. Bijeli Krug Croatia 
23. Bily Kruh Bezpeci (Czech Republic)
24. Brottsofferjouren Sverige (The Crime Victims’ Center Sweden)
25. Child Rights Centre Albania
26. DROGA Poland
27. Federation for Victim Assistance Ireland
28. France Victimes
29. Irish Road Victims Association (IRVA); International Road Victims Partnership
30. Klaipeda Social and Psychological Support Center
31. Law and Internet Foundation (Bulgaria)
32. Opferhilfe Berlin e.V.
33. Rete Dafne Italia 
34. Slachtofferhulp Netherlands
35. Skalbes Latvia
36. The Smile of the Child – Greece
37. Victim and Witness Support Service Croatia
38. Victim Support at Court (Ireland)
39. Victim Support Denmark 
40. Victim Support Europe
41. Victim Support Finland (RIKU)
42. Victim Support Flanders, CAW (Belgium)
43. Victim Support Malta 
44. Victim Support Sweden
45. Victim Support UK
46. Vilnius Institute for Advanced Studies (VILIAS)
47. Woman’s Room – Center for Sexual Rights Croatia 
48. Weisser Ring Austria
49. Weisser Ring Germany
50. Victimology Society of Serbia
51. Vilnius Institute of Advanced Studies (VILIAS)
52. White Circle Croatia