A/HRC/14/30/Add.2 policy, its implementation and its supervision, and that this policy complies with universal standards adopted in the framework of the United Nations and not only with European norms. 91. Ratifying the Convention will also help Romania to strengthen social cohesion by conveying a clear signal on the protection of migrant workers and their families. The Convention discourages the “commodification” and consequent abuse of migrant workers by legally asserting their human rights. This is linked to the need to reduce irregular migration by eliminating incentives for labour exploitation, work in abusive conditions and unauthorized employment that fuel trafficking in persons and smuggling of migrants, the latter reported to be on the rise in Romania, as described in section II above. 92. Another reason for Romania to ratify the Convention is that after ratification States parties may benefit from the review by the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families of their reports, which highlight progress and challenges in the implementation of the Convention at the national level. During this review process, the Committee provides States with guidance on implementation of human rights norms for migrant workers and members of their families. C. The protection and assistance of victims of human trafficking 93. The Special Rapporteur welcomes that domestic legislation related to the criminalization of trafficking in persons recognizes the prerogative of the victim to decide whether or not to testify in court against traffickers. Nevertheless, the Special Rapporteur heard allegations of the failure of some of the local authorities to provide adequate protection to returned trafficked victims. Alleged violations of the right to life and security of the person and the right to an effective remedy were frequently expressed to the Special Rapporteur during his visit. 94. A number of victims alleged that assistance and protection measures were dependent on their cooperation in testifying against the traffickers. Some victims stated that they had cooperated as a result of fear of criminalization, but that the protection granted by the authorities was not sufficient to avoid reprisals from the traffickers’ networks and therefore, they had to escape and look for alternative non-governmental assistance in other counties. This was reported to be a particular concern in the county of Iasi, which the Special Rapporteur was regrettably not able to visit, mostly because of time constraints. 95. Allegations of revictimization and multiple discrimination were also reported to the Special Rapporteur. Trafficked persons who returned to Romania either after investigation and punishment of traffickers in countries of destination or after escaping from exploitative situations in those countries informed the Special Rapporteur about their treatment as both victims and offenders by the NAATP authorities. They reported having felt that they were treated as mere pieces of evidence to prove the traffickers guilty, having been left without adequate protection and having sometimes been treated as “returned prostitutes” and not as “returned victims”. A number of stakeholders and trafficked victims interviewed alleged instances of corruption among the local police and NAATP officials and reported on the need to strengthen the law enforcement system. D. The protection of children in the context of migration 96. The Special Rapporteur identified the phenomenon of children left behind by migrating parents and child trafficking as major issues affecting children in the context of migration in Romania. 18 GE.10-12102