 One of our major concerns when we are dealing with forced labor, in my context, bonded labor, we have within our statutory framework three stages. The first stage is to identify. The second stage is to release. And the third stage is to rehabilitate. And we find that the legal missionary is happy to do the first and the second and will run away from the third. And in recent days I begin to feel that international pressure is for you to mention from where that may be originating seems to emphasize more on prosecution. And some of us in that context are very reluctant to move away from rehabilitation to prosecution. A bonded laborer belonging to the Dalit caste in India does not want the prosecution of his master. He wants to be rehabilitated in order to lead a decent life. Now, my question is my anxiety to find, you know, information and knowledge on this is in terms of definitional categories, does definition have a role to play vis-a-vis rehabilitation, for example? Why is there a movement towards prosecution rather than rehabilitation? Some of us are clearly opposed to it. I think for me an interesting issue that arises from this move that originally deals with prostitution and then realizes that it's also about other types of exploitation that's taking place in the Brazilian context at the moment is historically what has transpired. That the very regime of trafficking emerges from what was called the white slave trade but it was really about prostitution. And in a sense the early, my feeling about the early attempts to incorporate the Palermo protocol was the emphasis on sexual exploitation. But that in a very short period of time there was a true realization that exploitation went beyond it. In the context where I come from in the UK there's very much a shift from sexual exploitation to labour exploitation and I think that's a healthy development that's transpired as a result of Palermo that the notion of exploitation goes beyond sexual exploitation to labour exploitation. Brazil's example reveals this attempt to develop a definition that besides trafficking persons a definition that's encompass many forms of labour exploitation. We have under Brazilian law this crime of reducing someone to a condition analogous to that of a slave with a very detailed definition and with this definition we can encompass slavery, we encompass forced labour, debt bondage and many so-called slave-like practices. Now that the act element includes a range of actions beyond movement and recruitment isn't, this is not necessarily decisive because I think it can be argued quite convincingly that this reflected the drafter's intention to see trafficking as a process carried out by multiple actors working in concert. So pinpointing each act in the process was actually an attempt to criminalize all the actors involved in the process. The recruiters, the transporters, the owners, the managers and the supervisors actually of a place of exploitation not to equate the individual parts of the process with what was actually the outcome. So yes, we have a little bit of a problem there with the plain meaning of the words versus this much more contextual interpretation that brings us back again to the idea that trafficking is somehow associated very closely with movement and particularly with the exploitation of very vulnerable migrants.