A/HRC/38/41 perceived as “vulnerable”. Similarly, States should provide access to justice, including safe reporting, for all migrants, and pay special attention to those who have subjected to exploitation, criminal acts, sexual or gender-based violence or other types of violence. F. Current reintegration measures and their impact on the human rights of migrants 1. Reintegration policies 48. The factors influencing a person’s ability to reintegrate into his or her community are often similar or equal to the “push” and “pull” factors that led to the decision to migrate in the first place. Such factors include poverty, violence and discrimination, lack of access to rights and poor governance in countries of origin, the adverse effects of climate change and environmental degradation, labour needs and family reunification in the destination country (A/HRC/35/25, para. 28). There may, however, be additional factors, such as the trauma experienced during the journey or in the destination country, or the stigma endured upon return or because of the migration experience. 49. States, academia and policymakers use different definitions and indicators for “sustainable return”, such as reintegration into the economic, social and cultural process in the country of origin, the level of fear of persecution and violence experienced by returnees, or the number of returnees choosing to remigrate. 35 States, in particular destination countries, often measure the success of a return by the extent to which it can serve as a deterrent to other aspiring migrants. 50. In full recognition of the right to freedom of movement and the right to leave a country, including one’s own, the Special Rapporteur refrains from terminology that would measure returns and reintegration with success factors, qualifying a return as “sustainable” and reintegration as “successful”, given that a person may not want to remigrate, but may nevertheless not have (in his or her own perception) fully reintegrated. 51. In the context of well-governed migration policy, return may be one step in the migration cycle, but it is not necessarily the end of the process. Otherwise, “migration management” would merely become a policy of containment rather than one of human mobility in full respect of dignity and human rights. 52. More awareness and research on how returned migrants can reintegrate into their country of origin is required. Reintegration is possible only if the return has been truly voluntary, informed, free of coercion and with consideration of sufficient and valid alternatives to regularize a stay or to grant access to citizenship, and where the return has not been the only way out of exploitation and abuse in the destination country. 53. The Special Rapporteur recognizes the efforts made and the need to assist migrants in their reintegration process. Destination countries, countries of origin, civil society organizations, United Nations agencies, IOM and other stakeholders should be guided by a human rights-based approach to return and reintegration policies. They should only engage following a due diligence process that assesses the voluntariness of the return. Any programme for assisted voluntary return and reintegration should comprise a transparent, credible and public monitoring and evaluation system, also with regard to financial transparency and accountability. 2. Reintegration measures and challenges 54. States should ensure that all cooperation across borders promotes a human rightsbased approach to migration governance. They should take all possible measures to enable returning migrants to enjoy their human rights, including to benefit from their entitlement to social protection, health care, an adequate standard of living, decent work, education and access to justice. Returning and receiving States should provide effective and tailored reintegration programmes that address the different needs of returnees, on the basis of age, 35 12 See Kuschminder, “Taking Stock of Assisted Voluntary Return from Europe” (see footnote 17).