 This lack of data also meant that new casework had to be registered when reporting labour abuse - with little to no proactive action taken to ensure those that have been terminated from their jobs (and consequently repatriated), were ensured their due compensation, unpaid wages, or end-of-service benefits.  Extraordinary measures could have been taken by countries of destination and origin to improve data collection during this period through careful planning, instead of reactionary engagement and actions of damage control. However, civil society observed that States have been negligent and have failed to fathom the scope of issue. o Basic data collection could have been performed by national airlines (carrying out repatriation flights) through forms that allow migrant workers to detail their causes for repatriation and further assistance that they require. o During the initial period where the duration of quarantine required 14 days (before it was relaxed to 7 days), countries of origin could have collected data here as well. o Countries of destination should have opened their Missions in COOs for repatriated workers to make claims and compensation with a time limit of 2 years or so for reporting and resolution. o The need of documentation needs to shift away from CSOs to state authorities since governments would have the resources, infrastructure and mechanisms required to facilitate the implementation. Despite undertaking considerable risk and facing a dire lack of immediate resources, CSO’s and diaspora organisations in countries of destination and origin were instrumental in gathering data, documenting casework, and filing reports with authorities, pushing for action to be taken for workers who suffered from a lack of the most basic services such as health, food (and in some cases, paying their rent). Their timely involvement enabled migrant workers to return safely, access basic services, and claim their dues from their employers. In fact, it was their documentation and reporting to Missions and Ministries of Labour in the respective destination countries which eventually lead to positive actions from state authorities. The wage theft cases pending resolution at the destination country as well as cases reported to CSO’s by returnee migrants were included on the JWT-Uwazi platform. However, they also face considerable challenges in documenting wage theft cases for the platform.  Verification process: Certain organizations undertake a detailed verification process through further interviews and review cases before submitting to the website, which is a time-consuming process. Each worker has different situations even within group cases and while registering the case, the social worker typically needs to further ask details from each worker involved.  Waiting for Evidence: Migrants often take time before they can send documents/evidence. Organizations tend to wait for the workers to submit evidence first before completely submitting the case to the website. Several workers also reported confiscation of their documents and awaited its release by their employer.  Withdrawn cases: Certain cases were received by organisation but later withdrawn by the migrants/plaintiffs due to various reasons including workers reluctance to reveal more details or share their documents, workers wanting to wait for their employer to 12