NGO Atina commentary on Serbia’s official 2025 human trafficking statistics: More reports, not yet more protection

Photo: Freepick

Belgrade, February 2026: NGO Atina has published a detailed commentary on the 2025 official statistical report for Serbia, prepared by the Centre for the Protection of Victims of Human Trafficking, an institution mandated to identify victims of human trafficking. The numbers confirm what we see on the ground every day: human trafficking in Serbia is evolving, reports are increasing, but identification and protection are not keeping pace, especially in cases involving foreign nationals exposed to labour exploitation. 

This commentary was prepared in response to growing public attention and journalists' requests to explain what the official data actually mean in practice, beyond tables and percentages.

Why this matters now

Serbia has become a key destination and transit country for labour migration in recent years. With that shift comes a predictable risk: people whose employment, housing, debt, and legal status depend on an employer or intermediary are significantly more vulnerable to exploitation. The 2025 statistics show a system under pressure: more reporting, but uneven recognition and delayed or limited access to protection, precisely where vulnerability is highest.

Key findings from the official 2025 data 

1) Reports increased sharply, but recognition does not follow at the same pace

In 2025, the Centre received 240 reports of suspected human trafficking (around 30% more than the previous year). Yet the outcomes show a gap between “reporting” and “protection”. While 59 reports were dismissed, in 72 cases, the conclusion was that trafficking “did not occur,” and 41 procedures remained ongoing. Based on reports submitted in 2025, 59 victims were identified, plus 15 identifications linked to reports from the previous year. In practice, “ongoing” can mean people remain exposed to risk while the procedure is slow, and “dismissed” may mean the case disappears without adequate follow-up, even when serious indicators were present.

2) Civil society is still the main “detector”

The largest number of reports came from civil society organisations (90 reports). This confirms a long-standing reality: NGOs are often the first to identify trafficking, because survivors reach out to us, communities alert us, and we stay engaged long enough to see patterns. At the same time, this is happening with minimal resources: in practice, only around ten specialised professionals in Serbia work continuously on trafficking within civil society, while the state system has capacities measured in tens of thousands.

3) Labour exploitation dominates reports, but is often “downgraded”

Labour exploitation is the largest category in the report, with 114 reports concerned with labour exploitation and 53 reports about sexual exploitation cases. Yet a critical pattern appears in the official data: in 62% of cases where there was suspicion of labour exploitation, the outcome was redirected toward “labour-rights violations” or “fraud,” rather than recognising trafficking. Why does this matter? Because once a case is lowered to a labour dispute, the system often loses sight of core trafficking indicators: coercion, control, threats, violence, restriction of choice, and vulnerability, especially when migrants are involved.

4) Foreign nationals are now central to the trafficking risk landscape in Serbia

The report explicitly states that 64% of all reports concern foreign nationals, a significant increase compared to 36% in 2024 and 20% in 2021. Within transnational cases, the Centre recorded 154 reports of suspected exploitation, 76% of which related to labour exploitation, but only 27 foreign nationals were formally identified as victims. This points to limited system “throughput” precisely where dependency is highest: employer–accommodation–debt–status. When a person’s right to stay, income, and a roof over their head are tied to one actor, the threshold for leaving or reporting is extremely high, and protection needs to be faster, not slower.

5) Labour Inspectorate submitted one report, and it was dismissed

One of the most alarming indicators is the institutional failure to detect labour exploitation: the Labour Inspectorate submitted only one report, which was dismissed. This comes in the context of a major rise in labour migration: the report notes a nearly doubling of D-visa applications, to approximately 105,000 in 2025 from around 58,000 in 2024. In a country experiencing rapid labour-market and migration shifts, this cannot be treated as a minor statistical detail. It signals a serious functional gap: the institution that should be a key entry point for early detection and referral is not fulfilling that role.

6) Nearly half of the identified victims are children,  yet education reports almost nothing

Of the total 71 formally identified victims, 35 were minors (approximately 49%). Yet the education sector submitted only one report in 2025. This gap raises urgent questions: are trainings practical enough, do schools have clear reporting channels, are the right staff being trained, do institutions have the capacity and support to act consistently?

7) Trafficking remains overwhelmingly gender-based violence

Of the total 74 formally identified victims, 69% were women. The report highlights that many child victims are girls exposed to sexual exploitation, requiring intensive long-term support. This reinforces what Atina has consistently argued: the system cannot be truly protective without stable, predictable funding for specialised, trauma-informed services, beyond short-term, ad hoc responses.

What Atina is calling for: practical protection, not paperwork

Atina’s commentary highlights one key principle: protection should not depend solely on final formal “identification.” When a person is not recognised, protection often does not begin. If a case is dismissed for “insufficient data” without follow-up verification, outreach, review mechanisms, or interim measures, the person is not deemed safe. They become invisible. That is why Atina calls for enforceable steps, including mandatory follow-up and monitoring when cases are dismissed, review mechanisms when serious indicators exist, and proactive outreach instead of administrative closure when “a person cannot be located,” faster procedures and interim protective measures for “ongoing” cases, a functional, trained, resourced Labour Inspectorate with clear referral protocols, a standardised protective category of “person at risk” so protection can start early.

We prepared this commentary because numbers shape policy, and policy shapes lives. We invite institutions, media, diplomatic and international partners, and responsible employers to engage with these findings and support reforms that make protection real, consistent, and timely.

Read/download the full commentary (PDF) below.