With regard to the assertion that countries opt to not prosecute because it is cost prohibitive, that was indeed the case with regard to some countries. That said, EU member states that did prosecute found that the cost of a long distance enforcement was not the only obstacle. An adverse holding from the European Court of Human Rights directly impacted these prosecutions. On December 4, 2014, the ECHR ruled in Ali Samatar and Others v. France ) that France had violated Article 5 § 3 (the right to be brought promptly before a judge) of the European Convention on Human Rights when, upon their arrest in Somalia for piracy and transfer to France, the applicants were transferred to police custody instead of being sent directly to an investigating judge.  Because of the long detention during the trip from Somalia to France, the suspects should have been “brought immediately before an investigating judge.” While that decision is clearly one that should be revisited, for the time being, it binds the hands of European countries that conduct law enforcement operations far from home. With regard to the assertion that countries should have used CTF-151 vessels as a platform for judicial proceedings, I don’t recall any of the UNSCRs that CTF-151 operated under giving that authority to the task force, and even if that authority existed, I question whether that approach would pass legal muster. As a former defense counsel, I can think of several problems with that concept - the most egregious being the lack of a truly unbiased jury. With regard to additional assertion that “most countries do not consider it worthwhile” to chase stateless traffickers, this again ignores the ECHR decision, and the reality that most countries either lack the capacity to conduct high seas law enforcement and/or haven’t passed necessary domestic implementation legislation. As far as the allegation regarding countries choosing the extrajudicial approach, without further details, it deserves no further comment.