Introduction. This article explores Spain's human trafficking victim protection system, paying special attention to the mechanisms established for identification and intervention with victims. To this end, we analysed the protocols currently in force in Spain, and compared them to those approved in other European countries. The purpose was to detect the issues with the protocols' application as well as deficiencies in the Spanish system of victim assistance. We conclude with recommendations for improvement. Method. A content analysis of documentary material was performed. The sample was made up of specific documents and websites addressing the subject of assistance to victims of human trafficking, in Spain and in five other European countries: Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom. Two types of sources were differentiated: government sources, establishing the basic processes and mechanisms to assist victims; and sources of an assessment type, composed of documentation offering empirical and interpretive analyses. Results. Regarding the identification of trafficking victims, Spain presents two shortcomings. The first is the fact that the identification process is exclusive to law enforcement. The second concerns the lack of proactive initiatives to identify victims who are not included within the sexual exploitation typology. In this regard, the mechanisms existing in the United Kingdom and Portugal were found to be the best. In the British model, worthy of note is the National Referral Mechanism, the strategic instrument that coordinates actions related to this phase. The Portuguese model, for its part, is characterised by a regional organisation strategy. Concerning social intervention, Spain faces three weaknesses. First, the lack of resources dedicated to forms of exploitation other than sexual exploitation and to victims who are not women. Second, NGOs act almost alone during this phase. Finally, social operators who are in contact with victims need to improve their coordination. Within this phase, the comparative analysis led us to detect the Dutch system as the most significant contributor. This latter system integrates a network of assistance coordinators into the local administration. Discussion and Conclusions. Two common components were found that allow the country systems to approach the phenomenon more comprehensively. The first component is the activation and training of a greater number of operators linked to victim identification and intervention. The second component consists of more robust mechanisms supporting cooperation and action coordination. In the case of Spain, the future protocol should reconsider the fact of assigning exclusive responsibility to the State Security Forces to identify victims. In this sense, it would be advisable to encourage a more meaningful participation of key agents (such as social and health services, specialised NGOs, labour inspectors and trade unions). In the same way, the operational elements that are critical to the proper functioning of victim intervention should be specified.
