The report shows that Belgium’s status for smuggling victims is a selective and relatively underused protection mechanism. Since its introduction in 2006, only a small number of individuals have entered the procedure annually, often following extreme incidents such as transport in refrigerated containers or overloaded small boats. The study highlights the diverse circumstances in which the status is applied, ranging from high-risk transit operations to smaller-scale family or community-assisted border crossings, which may also involve exploitation or abuse. While the status is designed to offer legal protection in Belgium, many intended beneficiaries are primarily focused on reaching other destinations, notably the United Kingdom, limiting the appeal and practical use of the procedure.

The effectiveness of the status is closely linked to victim cooperation with judicial authorities, including providing information on smugglers and supporting criminal investigations. In practice, cooperation varies significantly: some victims actively share details of their experiences, while others have limited knowledge or are reluctant to participate, often due to language barriers, trauma, or fear of reprisals. These challenges are compounded by short initial reflection periods and heavy administrative workloads for frontline police. The study underscores that victims’ statements are only one element in a broader investigative toolkit, with other evidence often required to build criminal cases against smugglers.

The report identifies several tensions in the application of the status. First, there is a challenge in balancing the criminal prosecution of smugglers with the protection of victims. Second, the dominant perception of smuggling as large-scale organised crime contrasts with more ambiguous, everyday situations, such as family or community-assisted crossings. Third, authorities often deal with individuals who are both victims of smuggling and involved in irregular border crossings, which complicates their identification and the provision of support.

While the status is operational and generally supported by professionals, its selective nature, discretionary application, and limited visibility (especially compared with the human trafficking framework) highlight the need for improved coordination, wider knowledge sharing, and structured, victim‑centred approaches across judicial and support services.

For further information, please read the report in French or in Dutch below.