These OEPs and subagents can coerce or deceive migrant workers looking to work or travel abroad because of a lack of oversight in regulating the illegal trading of so-called Azad Visas, and the lack of attendance at pre-departure briefings, among other reasons. Many migrants use Direct or Process visas (also known as Azad Visas), which can be bought and sold in the unregulated “migration market”, to travel to the Gulf. Individual citizen visas are granted by the governments of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries to local sponsors for the hiring of household workers such as female domestic staff, drivers, gardeners and cleaners. But instead of being used for its intended purpose, the visa is often sold to those wishing to come to the GCC but unable to find appropriate job opportunities. With direct visas, there is less oversight, no need for a Foreign Service Agreement,6 or even a contract with the employer. For OEPs who have obtained Azad Visas for workers, the entire documentation process is carried out by a third-party actor, and individuals seeking to work abroad have little to no input in the process. Low-wage migrant workers also remain at risk of exploitation from unscrupulous recruiters and criminal actors, including individuals and groups involved in drug smuggling, because of a lack of information about the process of migration. The Emigration Ordinance 1979 seeks to remedy this by requiring that all prospective migrant workers attend a mandatory pre-departure briefing. The briefing is an essential tool to provide intending migrants with information to protect them and alert them to the life-threatening dangers of fraudulent recruitment practices. However, most low-skilled migrants, especially those coming from rural areas, fail to appear before the Protector and attend the briefings. All migrants looking to acquire a work visa must get their passport stamped by the Protectorate of Emigrants. A survey known as the Survey of Returned Migrants conducted in 2007 by the International Labour Organization demonstrates that of all their respondents, only 10 percent attended the “mandatory” pre-departure briefings at the protector’s office.7 The somewhat haphazard nature of these briefings where workers simply go to the Protector’s office and wait (sometimes for up to 6 hours) for a 30-minute briefing is a deterrent for people deciding whether or not to attend the briefing. The low attendance rate and the lack of checks and balances to enforce attendance lead to workers being handed counterfeit contracts, having problems with payment of wages stipulated in the contract, receiving inadequate accommodations or being asked to do a job different than the one initially promised. Section 3 of the report highlights how various government actors fail to fulfil their responsibility to protect vulnerable migrant workers before, during, and after they are incarcerated. Insufficient steps are taken at home to prosecute the individuals and groups responsible for the trafficking of migrant workers who end up imprisoned on drug smuggling offences in Gulf countries. The arrest of domestic perpetrators of drug smuggling could help clear the name of those falsely imprisoned in foreign jails. Despite first information reports filed by the families of those wrongfully imprisoned, none of the OEPs or their subagents were taken to account for their involvement. Only in one of the cases documented in this report was an OEP arrested in Khushab, only to be set free 12 days later on no charges. Adequate investigations were, therefore, not carried out to prevent vulnerable and coerced victims of the drug trafficking trade from paying for the crimes of others. 2