Case Law Database

Corruption

Criminalisation and law enforcement

• Abuse of functions

Participation in an organized criminal group

Offences

• Participation in criminal activities of organized criminal group
• Organizing, directing, aiding, abetting, facilitating or counselling the commission of a crime involving an organized criminal group

Degree of Involvement

• Knowledge of aim or activities of the organized criminal group or its intention to commit the crimes in question
• Overt act in furtherance of agreement

Smuggling of migrants

Offences

• Enabling illegal stay

Related Conduct

• Participating as an accomplice

Trafficking in persons

Offences

• Trafficking in persons (adults)

Acts Involved

• Recruitment/Hiring
• Transportation
• Harbouring
• Transfer
• Participating as an accomplice
• Organizing and directing other persons

Means Used

• Threat of the use of force or of other forms of coercion
• Fraud
• Deception
• Abuse of power or a position of vulnerability

Exploitative Purposes

• Exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation
• Forced labour or services

Protection Of Victims

• decriminalization
• Cooperation with NGOs

Case no. 91017032

Fact Summary

The current case initiated as two separate, independent investigations before the local and federal law enforcement forces of the city of Neuquén. When the connection between both inquiries was detected, they were merged into one single case. As a result of the aforementioned investigations, the Court was able to establish the existence of an organization dedicated to the recruitment of Dominican women through deception, and their transportation to Mar del Plata, Argentina, with the purpose of subjecting them to sexual exploitation.

The Dominican citizen D.D.M., was recruited and transported by R.A.A.C. The victim and R.A.A.C. left Santo Domingo on the 1st of February of 2010, and travelled to Lima, Peru by airplane. They later crossed the border crossing of Villazón-La Quiaca by foot, and arrived in Mar del Plata, Argentina, on February 5. Taking advantage of D.D.M.’s vulnerability, and with the false promise of a job at a shampoo factory or at a restaurant, which would help D.D.M. overcome her difficult economic situation, R.A.A.C. recruited the victim and transported her to the venue known as “D” in Mar del Plata.

However, once she discovered the deception and the true activity she would be subjected to, D.D.M. suffered a nervous breakdown. Due to her emotional breakdown, on the following day C.C.C. asked R.A.A.C. to take D.D.M. away from their establishment. Finding herself in that situation, in an unfamiliar  city and without the necessary money to go back to her country, the victim was forced to go with R.A.A.C. to two similar night venues, where she was subjected to sexual exploitation. Finally, D.D.M. was able to escape this exploitative situation thanks to the assistance provided by residents of Neuquén, which allowed her to denounce the situation before the Fedetal Prosecutor.

Similarly, the Court considered that it had been fully proven by the many testimonies received during the course of the trial, as well as by the body of evidence incorporated, that D.M.J.T. and J.C.Z. had been recruited and transported from the Dominican Republic to Mar del Plata. The victims were lured with a sham job offer and deceived through the abuse of their position of vulnerability. The victims were harboured in the dwelling located in Sal Salvador Street in Mar del plata. The defendants used coercive mechanisms, including penalties or fines, as well as the fabrication of financial debts, with the purpose of submitting them to sexual exploitation. This situation continued at least from the 28-06-2008, until the  19-04-2010, when the federal local law enforcement forces carried out a raid on the premises. On that occasion, law enforcement were able to verify the presence of several citizens from Dominican Republic – M.M.S., Y.A.A., S.U.R., and J.I.E.U. inside the establishment. These women were living in appalling sanitation and overcrowding conditions, and were also being subjected to exploitation.

The investigation regarding these acts initiated as a response to the complaint filed by D.M.J.T. before the Human Trafficking Delegation of the Federal Police on the 11th of March of 2010, after managing to escape with the help of a third person, and running  away to the city of Buenos Aires.

The victim reported that she had been recruited in the Dominican Republic together with nine other women, by a man named “T.”, who offered her the possibility of travelling to Spain, with the promise of obtaining a visa for her. The victim gave this man the deed to her house in the Dominican Republic, as a collateral to guarantee the payment for the travel arrangements. However, once the victim arrived at the airport of Santo Domingo to travel to Spain, this man told them that they would have to pass through Argentina first, as the visas were more easily obtained in Argentina. Once in Argentina, the victims were received and transported by a man called “J.”, and stayed at his personal domicile for ten days. She was then transported to a nightclub called “D.”. Once at “D.”, J. brought a few suitcases filled with underwear and lingerie, and told the women that there had been complications with the processing of the visas, and that they would have to work at the bar and prostitute theselves. He threatened the victims and told them that if they didn’t comply, they would lose their houses in the Dominican Republic.

From that moment onwards, the victims were entrapped in the nightlub, and they were not allowed to leave the premises under any circumstances. The victims were forced to engage in prostitution and to live in the same rooms in which they provided sexual services. In her testimony, D.M.J.T. mentioned a man called “F.”, who was J.’s son, and was the person in charge of the club. “F.” was responsible of charging customers for the sexual services performed and for the drinks consumed. He also fined the women and imposed penalties if a client complained for any reason, and charged the victims 400 pesos to pay off the police, and 300 pesos to pay for food and other expenses. The victim never received any money, because according to J., she had to repay the debt generated by her travel arrangements, to pay for the costs of her stay at the nightclub, and for the promised trip to Spain. After being in this situation for three months, the victim was able to escape with the help of a customer.

As to J.C.Z., she was recruited by her aunt, O.V.M. and her husband, J.S in June of 2008, with the promise of a job at O.V.M.’s beauty salon. However, upon arrival to Argentina, she found out the real nature of the activity she would be subjected to. J.C.Z. recounted the psychological abuse she suffered, as well as the coactive environment in which they lived, subject to constant violent threats, and even death threats. She also explained that the defendants simulated a supportive and prosperous environment, and forced the victims to record videos sending regards to their families, and to have their pictures taken at O.V.M.’s beauty salon, to convince their families that they were happy and working at that place.

El presente caso se inició como dos investigaciones independientes ante la justicia federal local y de la ciudad de Neuquén, que posteriormente se acumularon en un mismo caso, en función de la conexidad detectada. A través de las investigaciones mencionadas, pudo determinarse la existencia de una organización dedicada a la captación de personas de nacionalidad dominicana mediante engaño, y su traslado hasta Mar del Plata, Argentina, con la finalidad encubierta de someterlas a explotación sexual.

La ciudadana de República Dominicana D.D.M. fue captada y trasladada por R.A.A.C. desde Santo Domingo el 1 de febrero de 2010. R.A.A.C. y D.D.M. viajaron en avión a Lima, Perú, desde Santo Domingo,  para después atravesar por medio terrestre el paso fronterizo de Villazón-La Quiaca, arribando a Mar del Plata, Argentina, el 5 de febrero. Aprovechándose de la situación de vulnerabilidad por la que atravesaba D.D.M., y mediante la promesa de un falso empleo en una fábrica de champú o un restaurante, que le permitiría superar su difícil situación económica, R.A.A.C. captó a D.D.M., y la transportó hasta el local “D” en Mar del Plata, con la finalidad de someterla a explotación sexual.

Sin embargo, debido a la crisis nerviosa sufrida por D.D.M. tras advertir el engaño y descubrir la verdadera actividad a la que sería sometida, al día siguiente C.C.C. requirió a R.A.A.C. que retirase a D.D.M. del lugar. En esa situación, careciendo del dinero necesario para regresar a su país, y con pleno desconocimiento de la ciudad, la víctima se vio obligada a acompañar a R.A.A.C. a dos locales nocturnos de similares características, donde fue sometida a explotación sexual. Finalmente, D.D.M. logró escapar esta situación de explotación mediante el auxilio prestado por vecinos de Neuquén, lo cual le permitió presentar una denuncia ante la Fiscalía Federal.

Del mismo modo, el Tribunal consideró plenamente acreditado por los numerosos testimonios recibidos durante el desarrollo del juicio oral, así como por los elementos probatorios incorporados, que D.M.J.T. y J.C.Z. fueron captadas y trasladadas desde República Dominicana hasta Mar del Plata, mediante engaño consistente en una falsa propuesta de trabajo y abuso de su situación de vulnerabilidad. Las víctimas fueron alojadas en el domicilio de calle San Salvador. Allí, los acusados utilizaron mecanismos coactivos, incluyendo sanciones o multas, así como la generación de deudas dinerarias, con la finalidad de someterlas a explotación sexual. Esta situación se prolongó al menos desde el 28-06-2008, hasta el 19-04-2010, cuando se produjo el allanamiento ordenado por la justicia federal local. En dicha ocasión, se verificó la presencia de las ciudadanas de República Dominicana M.M.S., Y.A.A., S.U.R. y J.I.E.U. en dicho local, quienes se hallaban viviendo en severas condiciones de salubridad y hacinamiento, y eran sometidas a la misma explotación.

Las actuaciones se iniciaron como consecuencia de la denuncia realizada por D.M.J.T. en la Delegación Trata de Personas de la Policía Federal de Capital Federal el 11 de marzo de 2010, tras lograr escapar con la ayuda de una tercera persona y viajar a la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. La víctima denunció que había sido captada en República Dominicana junto con otras nueve mujeres, por un sujeto apodado “T.”, quien le ofreció la posibilidad de viajar a España, con la promesa de conseguirle una visa. La víctima entregó a este sujeto la escritura de su vivienda como garantía del pago de los servicios prestados para organizar el viaje. Sin embargo, cuando las víctimas llegaron al aeropuerto de Santo Domingo para viajar a España, este sujeto les informó de que primero pasarían por Argentina, ya que obtener la visa era más fácil en ese país. A su llegada a Argentina, las víctimas fueron recibidas y trasladadas por un sujeto llamado “J.”, alojándose diez días en su domicilio particular. Luego fue trasladada a un local denominado “D.”. Allí J. trajo unas maletas con ropa interior y les refirió que debido a que se había complicado el trámite de las visas debían trabajar en el bar y finalmente prostituirse, dado que si no lo hacían perderían sus casas en República Dominicana. A partir de ese momento, las víctimas se encontraron atrapadas en dicho local, del cual no se les permitía salir por ninguna circunstancia. Las víctimas fueron obligadas a prostituirse, y a vivir en las habitaciones donde realizaban los pases. D.M.J.T. mencionó a un hombre llamado “F.”, que sería el encargado del local e hijo de “J.”. “F.” se dedicaba a cobrar los pases y copas y cobraba multas a las mujeres en caso de quejas de clientes, así como $400 para la policía y $300 para los gastos de comida. La víctima nunca recibió pago alguno, ya que según J. debía pagar las deudas generadas por el viaje, su estancia en el local, y la promesa del viaje a España. Tras tres meses en esta situación, D.M.J.T. logró escapar, gracias a la ayuda de un cliente de aquél lugar.

En cuanto a J.C.Z., ésta fue captada por su tía O.V.M. y su esposo, J.S en Junio de 2008, con la promesa de un empleo en una peluquería. Sin embargo, tras llegar a Argentina conoció la verdadera actividad a la que sería sometida. J.C.Z. describió  el maltrato psicológico al que fue sometida, así como el ambiente de constante coacción y amenazas –incluso de muerte- que las víctimas debieron soportar. Por otra parte, también explicó que los acusados simulaban un entorno afectivo y próspero, obligando a las víctimas a grabar videos enviando saludos a sus familiares y a tomarse fotografías en el interior de la peluquería de O.V. M. para que sus familiares pensaran que trabajaban en dicho negocio.

Commentary and Significant Features

Cabe destacar que el Tribunal dedicó su atención detenidamente al problema de la exención de responsabilidad penal de las víctimas de tráfico de personas por la comisión de delitos como resultado directo de haber sido víctimas del delito de trata. Resulta muy interesante el análisis que el Tribunal realiza, al considerar el caso de R.A.C., sobre el uso de estereotipos de género en la identificación de víctimas de trata, y cómo éste puede suponer la exclusión de aquellas víctimas que no se ajustan a las imágenes sociales generalizadas sobre las víctimas de este delito. Así, ciertos Tribunales y fuerzas de la ley pueden llegar a discriminar, protegiendo a las víctimas “buenas/inocentes”, que son las que se consideran víctimas “reales”, y castigando a las víctimas “malas/culpables”.

El Tribunal continúa su análisis explicando que el sometimiento de las víctimas de trata al proceso penal expone a éstas al riesgo de una posible revictimización. El Tribunal expresó que el enjuiciamiento de víctimas de trata de personas podría considerarse violencia institucional, ya que en lugar de recibir la protección que la ley acuerda a todas las personas ofendidas por el delito, estas víctimas deben enfrentarse el poder punitivo del Estado y a la amenaza de una pena privativa de libertad, deben declarar en reiteradas ocasiones, y someterse al riguroso escrutinio judicial para determinar su condición de víctima. Significativamente, el Tribunal llama la atención sobre el dato de que en más de cinco años de vigencia de la ley Nº 26.364 en Argentina, los jueces sólo han recurrido a la aplicación de la excusa absolutoria en muy pocas oportunidades.

El Tribunal también reflexionó sobre los riesgos que suponen  para las víctimas, su salud mental y su recuperación, los largos interrogatorios a los que éstas son sometidas poco después de haber padecido graves afecciones a su integridad física, psíquica y moral como consecuencia de la experiencia traumática vivida. Además, durante el proceso judicial se pone en entredicho los testimonios de las víctimas, se resalta cada mínima inconsistencia o cualquier fallo en su memoria. Así, el Tribunal sostuvo que los testimonios de D.M.J.T., D.D.M. y J.C.Z. no sólo eran coherentes, sino consistentes entre sí y con los restantes elementos probatorios del caso.

El Tribunal enfatizó los efectos y consecuencias del trauma en la identificación de víctimas de tráfico de personas, y subrayó que, tal y como explicaron las psicólogas de la Oficina de Rescate y Acompañamiento a Víctimas de Trata, las víctimas pueden haber atravesado una serie de experiencias tan extremas, que son incapaces de entender la naturaleza del abuso sufrido, o aceptar que ellas habían sufrido tales abusos. Estas experiencias abusivas y traumáticas no son fácilmente asumibles, y a menudo generan fragmentación en las percepciones, sentimientos o memoria, e incluso su negación total. El Tribunal atribuyó las actitudes de las testigos que no declararon mediante videoconferencia, y que no se reconocieron como víctimas de explotación ni advirtieron el aprovechamiento y el lucro obtenido a su costa por los acusados, a éste fenómeno disociativo por el que las víctimas no se identifican con sus vivencias traumáticas, ya que no pueden aceptar que tales eventos les sucedieran a ellas. En este sentido, el Tribunal consideró observó que las víctimas miraban permanentemente hacia el lugar donde se hallaban los imputados, en busca de algún signo de aprobación, llegando incluso al extremo de expresar su descontento con las detenciones realizadas.

El Tribunal rechazó los argumentos de la defensa que buscaban sugerir la inexistencia de explotación y sometimiento en base al grado de libertad de movimientos de las víctimas, y  resaltando cuestiones relativas a la existencia o no de rejas en el local, candados, llaves o incluso la posibilidad de haber visto a alguna de ellas en vía pública. El Tribunal indicó que conforme a la abundante jurisprudencia disponible, a la hora de considerar la presencia de explotación y trabajos forzados, no debe considerarse tan sólo la libertad de movimiento, sino las posibilidades y capacidad reales de la víctima de ejercer su derecho a la autodeterminación personal, y de retirarse o liberarse de una situación concreta. Así, el Tribunal explicó que si bien el art.145 bis se ubica en el Capítulo del Código Penal que recoge los delitos contra la libertad individual, se desprende del propio texto que no resulta necesario que el sujeto pasivo sea privado de su libertad ambulatoria de manera efectiva, por lo que resulta razonable concluir que lo que se pretende tutelar es la libertad de autodeterminación de las personas.

We must note that the Court carefully turned its attention to the issue of the exemption from prosecution for victims of human trafficking for any offenses committed as a direct result of having been trafficked. Worth of mention is the Court’s assessment of the case of R.A.A.C., and its analysis of the use of gender stereotypes in the identification of victims of human trafficking, and how it might result in the exclusion of those victims who do not conform to or match pervasive social constructs regarding victims of this crime. Thus, law enforcement agencies and even Courts might become discriminatory, protecting the “good/innocent” victims, who are deemed to be the “real” victims, and punishing the “bad/guilty” victims.

The Court continues its analysis by explaining that subjecting trafficking victims to the legal justice process exposes them to a potential risk of revictimization. The Court maintained that the prosecution of victims of trafficking could be considered institutional violence, because instead of receiving the protection accorded by law to all victims of crime, these victims must face the State’s punitive power and the threat of a custodial sentence, they are pushed to testify repeatedly, constantly retelling their stories, and are subjected to strict judicial scrutiny in order to determine their status as victims. Significantly, the Court drew attention to the fact that while Law No. 26,364 has been in force for more than 5 years in Argentina, judges have only made use of the exemption in very few instances.

The Court also took some time to reflect about the risks for victims of trafficking, for their mental health and their recovery, of being subjected to long and dense interrogations shortly after having suffered severe physical, psychological and moral trauma. Moreover, the Court noted that during the legal process the testimonies of victims are often challenged and every minimal inconsistency or any gaps in their memories are highlighted and contested. Accordingly, the Court stated in unequivocal terms, that the testimonies of D.M.J.T., D.D.M. y J.C.Z. were not only coherent, but also consistent with each other and with the remaining pieces of evidence presented in the case.

The Court emphasized the effects and consequences of trauma in the identification of victims of human trafficking, and highlighted that, as explained by psychologists of the Office for the Rescue and Protection of Victims of Trafficking, victims might have gone through a series of experiences so extreme that they are unable to comprehend the nature of the abuse suffered, or accept that they were the subjects of that abuse. Such abusive and traumatic experiences are difficult to accept and process, and often lead to fragmentation in the perception, feelings or memory, and even to a state of denial. The Court ascribed the attitude of the victim-witnesses who testified before the court –not through videoconference- and who did not recognize themselves as victims of trafficking, and did not realize the exploitation they suffered and the gains obtained by the defendants, to this dissociative psychological phenomenon. Often victims cannot identify themselves with their traumatic experiences, as they cannot accept that such things really happened to them. In this sense, the Court pointed out to the fact that the victims were constantly looking at the defendants, searching for any sign of approval, and even expressing their discontent with their arrest and with the proceedings.

The Court rejected the defense’s arguments suggesting that the victims were not forced or constrained based on their freedom of movement, and highlighting details such as the absence of bars on the windows of the nightclub, locks or keys. The Court noted that in keeping with the abundant jurisprudence on this topic, the Court must not only take into account indicators of freedom of movement when considering the presence of exploitation and forced labour, but must also consider the real possibilities and ability of a victim to “exit” a specific situation or environment. The Court explained that while art. 145 bis is located on the chapter of the Argentine Criminal Code pertaining to crimes against personal freedom, it can be inferred from the legal text that it is not necessary for the victim to be effectively deprived of his or her freedom of movement. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that what the law seeks to protect is the right to self-determination and freedom of choice.

Sentence Date:
2014-05-20
Author:
UNODC with contribution of María Barraco, as part of collaboration with Queen Mary University London

Keywords

Organized Crime Convention:
Article 5 UNTOC
Trafficking in Persons Protocol:
Article 3, Trafficking in Persons Protocol
Article 5, Trafficking in Persons Protocol
Acts:
Recruitment
Transportation
Transfer
Harbouring
Means:
Threat or use of force or other forms of coercion
Fraud
Deception
Abuse of power or a position of vulnerability
Purpose of Exploitation:
Exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation
Forced labour or services
Form of Trafficking:
Transnational
Organized Criminal Group
Sector in which exploitation takes place:
Commercial sexual exploitation
Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants:
Article 5 Criminalization of participation in an organized criminal group
Article 13 Legitimacy and validity of documents

Cross-Cutting Issues

Liability

... for

• completed offence

... based on

• criminal intention

... as involves

• principal offender(s)
• participant, facilitator, accessory

Offending

Details

• involved an organized criminal group (Article 2(a) CTOC)
• occurred across one (or more) international borders (transnationally)

Involved Countries

Dominican Republic

Argentina

Investigation Procedure

Confiscation and Seizure

Seized Money:
12000 USD

Seized Property

Dwelling in San Salvador Street & Mitsubishi Outlander car

 

Legal Basis

The dwelling and the adjacent rooms were used to host the criminal activity penalized in this case. The significant sums of money found, as well as the ownership of a Mitsubishi Outlander car cannot be explained by any of  the economic activities declared by the defendants.

 

Gender considerations

Details

• Gender considerations

Procedural Information

Legal System:
Civil Law
Latest Court Ruling:
Court of 1st Instance
Type of Proceeding:
Criminal
 

1ª Instancia: 

Corte/Tribunal: Tribunal Oral en lo Criminal Federal de Mar del Plata
Local: Mar del Plata
Fecha de la decisión: 20-05-2014
Referencia: Sentencia No. 91017032

1st Instance: 

Court: Oral Federal Criminal Court of Mar del Plata
Location: Mar del Plata
Date of decision: 20-05-2014
Reference: Decision No. 91017032

 
 
Proceeding #1:
  • Stage:
    appeal
  • Official Case Reference:
    FMP 91017032/2010/TO1/CFC1
  • Court

    Court Title

    Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation
     

    Location

  • City/Town:
    Buenos Aires
  • • Criminal

    Description

    Five of the defendants appealed the decision of the 1st instance. Mainly, they argued that one of the victim’s testimony should be declared invalid (D.M.T.J.); that judicial proceedings were violated when receiving the testimony of one of the alleged victims through videoconference (J.C.Z); that there was no crime of sexual exploitation since the alleged victims have consented to the exercise of prostitution; and that the elements of the crime of migrant smuggling were not met.

    The Court rejected all the claims, and confirmed the decision.

    It recognized that for the victims of human trafficking testifying repeatedly and/or in presence of the defendants can induce secondary victimization.

    Furthermore, it recognized that the victims did not choose to be prostitutes, but rather forced through fraud and coercion. Accordingly, the defendants used “means” to secure the exploitation.

    Moreover, the Court considered that Iacovone committed the crime of SOM, since he helped the Dominicans to obtain the permits to reside in Argentina, falsely stating that they worked as domestic servants, while he knew they were sexually exploited. 

    Finally, the Court emphasized in relation to the public official involved that: “Paradoxically, the person that had to protect them -the victims – in accordance with his institutional role, abused his position and turned into an accomplice”.

     

    Outcome

  • Verdict:
    Guilty
  • Victims / Plaintiffs in the first instance

    Victim:
    D.D.M.
    Gender:
    Female
    Nationality:
    Dominican
    Victim:
    D.M.J.T.
    Gender:
    Female
    Nationality:
    Dominican
    Victim:
    J.C.Z.
    Gender:
    Female
    Nationality:
    Dominican
    Victim:
    M.M.S.
    Gender:
    Female
    Nationality:
    Dominican
    Victim:
    Y.A.A.
    Gender:
    Female
    Nationality:
    Dominican
    Victim:
    S.U.R.
    Gender:
    Female
    Nationality:
    Dominican
    Victim:
    J.I.E.U.
    Gender:
    Female
    Nationality:
    Dominican

    Defendants / Respondents in the first instance

    Defendant:
    R.A.A.C.
    Gender:
    Female
    Nationality:
    Dominican
    Born:
    1970
    Legal Reasoning:

    El Tribunal consideró que la participación de R.A.A.C. en la comisión del delito de trata de personas había sido ampliamente acreditada mediante una variedad de elementos probatorios. Así, el Tribunal consideró establecido a través de las numerosas pruebas aportadas, que R.A.A.C. captó a D.D.M. mediante engaño y aprovechándose de su situación de vulnerabilidad. Así, R.A.A.C. convenció a D.D.M. para que viajara con ella desde República Dominicana hasta Mar del Plata, Argentina, con la falsa promesa de un trabajo en una fábrica de champú o en un restaurante, teniendo la autora pleno conocimiento de que el verdadero destino de la víctima era la explotación sexual. A fin de captar la voluntad de D.D.M., la acusada recurrió al engaño, ocultando la verdadera actividad a la que la víctima sería sometida en Argentina. Además, utilizó la situación de vulnerabilidad en la que ésta se encontraba y su difícil situación económica y familiar. La acusada utilizó el vínculo familiar que le unía con la víctima –era pareja de su sobrino - a fin de obtener su confianza y persuadirla para emprender el viaje.

    A tal fin, R.A.A.C. asistió a la víctima en los trámites relativos a la obtención del pasaporte. Asimismo, pudo determinarse en el juicio que el 1 de febrero de 2010 R.A.A.C. viajó en avión junto con D.D.M. desde Santo Domingo, arribando a Lima al día siguiente, y que luego continuó por vía terrestre hasta Argentina a través del cruce fronterizo Villazón (Bolivia) – La Quiaca, el cual ambas cruzaron el 5 de febrero. Finalmente, la encartada entregó a la víctima en Mar del Plata para su explotación sexual en el local nocturno “D.”.

    Gracias a las tareas de investigación, y en concreto a los testimonios de los funcionarios de la Prefectura Naval, así como los informes remitidos por la Dirección Nacional de Migraciones, el Tribunal pudo concluir con plena certeza que R.A.A.C. tenía conocimiento del verdadero destino al que D.D.M. sería sometida.Asimismo, el coimputado C. C. C. confirmó en su testimonio la existencia de una relación de amistad con R.A.A.C., describiendo además el momento en el cual ésta se presentó en su domicilio con la víctima, y cómo la víctima había sufrido una crisis emocional tras conocer la verdadera actividad a la que se vería sometida.

    Aunque el Tribunal consideró que había sido acreditada tanto la materialidad del hecho como la responsabilidad de R.A.A.C. en la comisión del mismo, en último término el Tribunal resolvió absolver a la acusada, en aplicación de la excusa absolutoria del art. 5 de la ley 26.364. El Tribunal explicó que las circunstancias de este caso imponen la aplicación del art. 5º de la ley 26.364 que establece que “las víctimas de la trata de personas no son punibles por la comisión de cualquier delito que sea el resultado directo de haber sido objeto de trata”. El Tribunal consideró que R.A.A.C. “no era sino otra víctima del siniestro engranaje que implica el delito de trata de personas”. El Tribunal puntualizó que R.A.A.C. no era una empresaria de la prostitución que pretendía obtener ganancias con la captación de D.D.M., sino que ella misma era una mujer tratada, explotada sexualmente por propietarios de varios locales nocturnos –como “D.”, “K.” o “La M.”- que se aprovechaban de su propia situación de vulnerabilidad para lucrarse con el ejercicio de la prostitución de la ahora encartada. Así, el Tribunal destacó que cuando R.A.A.C. fue detenida se encontraba ejerciendo la prostitución en el local “La M.”, viviendo en condiciones precarias en una habitación en deplorables condiciones de higiene donde también se llevaban a cabo los “pases”. El Tribunal señaló que estas circunstancias también pueden entenderse como un medio de coerción, ya que implica el aislamiento de la víctima respecto de los restantes habitantes del entorno en el que vive.

    El Tribunal reflexionó sobre la situación de vulnerabilidad en la que se encontraba la acusada, R.A.A.C., puntualizando que ésta era también una migrante que había dejado su país acuciada por su difícil situación personal, familiar y económica. Así, el Tribunal consideró relevante la historia vital de R.A.A.C., quien había sufrido violencia, abusos domésticos y trauma en su entorno familiar y en sus relaciones sentimentales desde su juventud. Además, R.A.A. C. era responsable de sostener económicamente a sus tres hijos y a su madre viuda. Por esa razón, R.A.A.C. se puso en contacto con una señora que le ofreció trabajo en Argentina como camarera en un bar. R.A.A.C. viajó hasta Mar del Plata, Argentina, creyendo que trabajaría sirviendo las mesas,  pero acabó prostituyéndose en “D.”, ante la imposibilidad de desempeñar otra tarea. Allí debió trabajar en condiciones de trata durante al menos dos meses. Después, se trasladó a otros lugares desempeñando la misma actividad a cambio del 50% del importe pagado por los clientes, monto que compartía con los tratantes. Así, el Tribunal concluyó que la situación de R.A.A.C. no era distinta de las demás víctimas, y que aunque ésta había comparecido en el presente proceso en carácter de imputada, se había hecho evidente, a través del desarrollo del debate oral y de los elementos probatorios acumulados, que R.A.A.C. era una víctima más del delito de trata.

    Además, el informe psicológico del Cuerpo Médico Forense de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, acreditó que R.A.C. tuvo dos intentos frustrados de suicidio en el año 2011. Conforme las conclusiones de dicha pericia psicológica presentaba “múltiples antecedentes de traumas psíquicos, familiares, filiales [y] sociales … siendo su carácter vulnerable y tendiente a ubicarse … en situaciones de riesgo… ha sufrido situaciones de violencia de distinto tipo como   pueden  ser  sexuales, físicas y psicológicas…Presenta angustia y depresión y requiere tratamiento psicoterápico y medicamentoso…” 

    Por todas estas razones, el Tribunal sostuvo que la aplicación de una pena en el caso de R.A.C. significaría volver a victimizar a una mujer que ya había sufrido graves instancias de violencia de género, así como la cosificación de su cuerpo y su persona, tanto en su país como en Argentina, donde no conoció otra realidad que la de someterse a la explotación de terceros. 

    The Court held that R.A.A.C.’s participation in the crime of human trafficking had been thoroughly proved through a variety of probative elements. Therefore, the Court held that it had been established through the wealth of evidence brought before it, that R.A.A.C. recruited D.D.M. through deception, and taking advantage of her position of vulnerability. Thus, R.A.A.C. convinced D.D.M. to travel from the Dominican Republic to Mar del Plata, Argentina, with her, under the false pretense of a job at a shampoo factory or a restaurant. R.A.A.C. was fully aware of the fact that upon arrival to Argentina, the victim would be subjected to sexual exploitation. In order to entice the D.D.M., the defendant resorted to deception, concealing the reality of the activity to which the victim would be subjected in Argentina. Furthermore, she took advantage of the victim’s position of vulnerability, and of her difficult economic and family situation. The defendant used her family link with the victim –she was her nephew’s partner- in order to obtain the victim’s trust, and persuade her to travel with her to Argentina.

    To this end, R.A.A.C. assisted the victim with the formalities required in order to obtain a passport. It could also be established at trial, that on the 1st of February 2010 R.A.A.C. and D.D.M. travelled together by airplane, departing from Santo Domingo and arriving to Lima on the next day. They then travelled by land, and entered Argentina on the 5th of February through the border crossing of Villazón (Bolivia) – La Quiaca. Finally, the defendant delivered the victim in Mar del Plata for her sexual exploitation at the night club known as “D.”. 

    Through the investigative tasks carried out, and specifically as a result of the testimonies of the Coast Guard Officers (Prefectura Naval Argentina), as well as the reports submitted by the National Directorate for Migrations, the Court was able to conclude, with all certainty, that R.A.A.C. was aware of D.D.M.’s true fate, and of the activity that she would be subjected to on arrival in Argentina.

    Furthermore, codefendant C.C.C. confirmed the existence of a friendship with R.A.A.C. in her testimony. C.C.C. also described the moment in which R.A.A.C. showed up at her home with the victim, and how the victim had suffered an emotional breakdown after finding out the true nature of the activity she would be subjected to.  

    Although the Court considered that both the criminal nature of the her actions and R.A.A.C.’s responsibility in the commission thereof, the Court ultimately decided to acquit the defendant, under the exonerating circumstance of art. 5 of Law 26.364. The Court explained that the circumstances of this case require the application of art. 5º of Law 26.364, which establishes that “victims of trafficking in persons are not punishable for the commission of any crime that is the direct result of having been trafficked.” The Court considered that R.A.A.C. was “nothing but another victim of the sinister machinery of the crime of human trafficking”.

    The Court noted that R.A.A.C. was not an entrepreneur in the prostitution business who sought to make a profit with the recruitment of D.D.M. She was in fact a trafficked woman herself, sexually exploited by the owners of several brothels – such as “D.”, “K.” or “La M.”- who took advantage of her own position of vulnerability in order to turn a profit from her prostitution. Thus, the Court highlighted that R.A.A.C. was arrested while she was practicing prostitution at the venue known as “La M.”, living in a precarious environment, in appalling sanitary conditions, in a room in which the women also performed sexual acts. The Court noted that these circumstances can also be understood as a coercive mechanism that involves the isolation of the victim from other people and from the community in which she lives.

    The Court reflected upon the position of vulnerability of the defendant, R.A.A.C., noting that she too was a migrant who had left her country beset by her difficult personal, family and economic situation. Thus, the Court considered that R.A.A.C.’s life story was relevant to the case. R.A.A.C. had suffered violence, domestic abuse and trauma in her home environment and in her romantic relationships since childhood. Furthermore, R.A.A.C. needed to provide financially for her three children and her widowed mother. For that reason, R.A.A.C. got in touch with a woman who offered her work in Argentina as a waitress at a bar. The defendant thus travelled to Argentina, but when she arrived in Mar del Plata she found out that there was no waitressing job. Faced with the impossibility of performing any other job, she ended up prostituting herself at “D.” She was then forced to work at “D.” for at least two months. Afterwards, she moved to other places, where she also engaged in prostitution in exchange for 50% of the fees paid by customers (which she shared with the traffickers).

    Therefore, the Court concluded that R.A.A.C.’s situation was no different from that of the other victims, and that while she had appeared in the present case as an accused party, it had become apparent that R.A.A.C. was in reality a victim of human trafficking.

    In addition to this, the psychological report of the Forensic Medical Unit of the Supreme Court of Justice established that R.A.A.C. attempted suicide in two occasions in 2011. According to the findings of the psychological assessment, the defendant presented “a history of psychological, family … [and] social trauma… her personality being vulnerable and with a tendency to put herself … in risky situations … she has suffered different types of violence such as sexual, physical and psychological [violence]… She presents anxiety and depression and is in need of psychotherapy and drug treatment…”

    The Court held that sentencing R.A.C. would be revictimizing a woman who had already suffered serious instances of gender-based violence, as well as the commodification of her body and person.

    Defendant:
    C.C.C.
    Gender:
    Female
    Nationality:
    Dominican
    Born:
    1967
    Legal Reasoning:

    En lo referente a C.C.C., el Tribunal consideró su participación en los hechos como una participación secundaria, y por tanto un aporte no esencial, de carácter fungible.

    A través de las tareas investigativas surgió que C.C.C. era la persona ubicada detrás de la barra del local como encargada. El tribunal puntualizó, sin embargo, que C.C.C. actuó siempre bajo la supervisión y presencia constante bien de J.D.S., F.M.S. o O.V.M., quienes fueron considerados por el Tribunal como los responsables, principales beneficiarios y directores de la explotación sexual de las víctimas.

    Del mismo modo, el Tribunal consideró acreditado que la encartada recibió a D.D.M. en su domicilio de manos de la coimputada R.A.C. Posteriormente condujo a D.D.M. al inmueble conocido como “D.”, dirigido y controlado por  J.D.S., O.V.M. y su hijo F.M.S., donde fue acogida al menos un día con la finalidad de someterla a explotación sexual en beneficio de los responsables del lugar.

    With regard to C.C.C., the Court considered her participation in the events as secondary, and therefore as a non-essential contribution of fungible nature.

    As a result of the investigations carried out, it emerged that C.C.C. was the person responsible for the bar. The Court noted, however, that C.C.C. always acted under the supervisión and in the constant presence of J.D.S., F.M.S. or O.V.M., who were held by the Court to be the people responsible for, and main beneficiaries of the sexual exploitation of the victims.  

    Similarly, the Court considered that it had been established that the defendant received D.D.M. from R.A.A.C. at her home. She later took D.D.M. to the venue known as “D.”, directed and controlled by J.D.S., O.V.M. and their son F.M.S., where she was harboured for at least one day with the purpose of sexually exploiting her.

    Defendant:
    J.D.S.
    Gender:
    Male
    Nationality:
    Argentine
    Born:
    1955
    Legal Reasoning:

    El 19 de abril de 2010, como consecuencia del allanamiento ordenado por la justicia federal local, se constató la presencia de las ciudadanas de República Dominicana M.M.S., Y.A.A., S.U.R. y J.I.E.U. en el local conocido como “D.”. J.D.S. resultó ser el titular de la habilitación de dicho local. El Tribunal consideró también que ésta era quien estaba involucrado en el control de las víctimas de una forma más activa e intimidatoria. 
    El Tribunal sostuvo que los múltiples elementos convictivos obtenidos en el marco del juicio oral y a lo largo de la instrucción penal resultan suficientes para demostrar que J. D. S. trasladó a J.C.Z. desde República Dominicana hasta Mar del Plata, Argentina, y que recibió a D. M. J. T. en el aeropuerto internacional de Ezeiza. Que ambas habían sido reclutadas mediante abuso de su situación de vulnerabilidad y engaño consistente en una propuesta de trabajo falsa, todo ello con el objetivo de acogerlas en el domicilio propiedad de su pareja, O. V. M., y administrado por su hijo F. M. S., para allí explotarlas sexualmente.

    El Tribunal también estableció que las víctimas habían sufrido métodos coactivos tales como sanciones o multas y la generación de deudas dinerarias, con la finalidad de forzar a las víctimas a prostituirse, y así someterlas a la  explotación sexual con la que los acusados se beneficiaron económicamente.

    On April 19, 2010, following the raid ordered by the local federal courts, the presence of several citizens of the Dominican Republic –M.M.S., Y.A.A., S.U.R. and J.I.E.U.- inside the “nightclub” known as "D" was confirmed. 
    The Court held that the multiple pieces of evidence obtained in the context of the trial and throughout the criminal investigation were sufficient to show that J.D.S. transported J.C.Z. from the Dominican Republic to Mar del Plata, Argentina, and that she received a D.M.J.T. at Ezeiza International Airport. Both victims had been recruited through abuse of their vulnerability and deception consisting in a sham job offer. The defendant’s objective was to harbour the victims at the property owned by his partner, O.V.M., and managed by his son F.M.S., with the purpose of sexually exploiting them. 

    The Court also found that the victims had been subjected to coercive mechanisms such as penalties or fines, and the fabrication of monetary debts in order to force them into prostitution, and with the ultimate goal of obtaining financial benefits from their sexual exploitation.

    Defendant:
    O.V.M.
    Gender:
    Female
    Nationality:
    Dominican
    Born:
    1972
    Legal Reasoning:

    El Tribunal consideró ampliamente probada la participación de O.V.M. en los hechos que nos ocupan. Además de ser la propietaria del local allanado y de las habitaciones linderas, O.V.M. ejercía un control permanente sobre la actividad que se desarrollaba y el dinero obtenido a través de la explotación sexual de las víctimas.

    El Tribunal valoró los informes elaborados por los funcionarios que desarrollaron las tareas de investigación, que la señalaron como la dueña del lugar, así como los testimonios de D.M.J.T., M.M.S. y J.C.Z.

    The Court held that the participation of O.V.M. in the criminal activities analyzed in this case had been fully proved. In addition to being the owner of the raided premises and the adjoining “guestrooms”, O.V.M. closely monitored and controlled the activity that took place at that venue, and the money obtained from the sexual exploitation of the victims.

    The Court took into account the reports compiled by the various civil servants who carried out the investigative tasks. These reports, together with the testimonies of D.M.J.T., M.M.S. and J.C.Z. identified O.V.M. as the owner of the brothel.

    Defendant:
    F.M.S.
    Gender:
    Male
    Nationality:
    Argentine
    Born:
    1979
    Legal Reasoning:

    El Tribunal consideró a F. M. S. coautor del delito de trata, teniendo como probado el rol de éste como principal encargado de controlar la actividad del lugar. F.M.S. fue señalado por las víctimas como el encargado de cobrar el dinero proveniente de la explotación a la que eran sometidas, reteniendo un elevado porcentaje.

    The Court found that F.M.S. guilty for the crime of human trafficking (co-responsible together with O.V.M. and J.D.S.). The Court established that F.M.S.’s role within the criminal enterprise was to control and be in charge of the venue and the sexual exploitation of the victims.

    F.M.S. was identified by the victims as the person in charge of receiving the payments made by customers in exchange of the sexual services that were provided by the victims. The witnesses noted that he retained a high percentage of this income.

    Defendant:
    A.H.C.
    Gender:
    Male
    Nationality:
    Dominican
    Born:
    1977
    Legal Reasoning:

    En cuanto a A.H.C., el Tribunal también consideró su aportación como complicidad secundaria. A.H.C., pareja de C.C.C. fue señalado tanto por las víctimas, en sus declaraciones, como por funcionarios de la Prefectura Naval Argentina que practicaron las tareas investigativas, como la persona encargada de la entrada y  seguridad del local “D.”. A.H.C. trabajaba principalmente durante la noche, cobrando la entrada a los eventuales sujetos que se presentaban, a quienes además observaba cuando ingresaban a las habitaciones contiguas junto a alguna de las víctimas de explotación.

    El Tribunal calificó la aportación de A.H.C. como fungible,  dada su naturaleza y encaje dentro de la totalidad del hecho, la estructura del grupo criminal, y atendiendo al hecho de que en ocasiones la función de seguridad externa era también ejercida por otro sujeto.

    As to A.H.C., the Court also considered that he was a secondary accessory to the crime. A.H.C. , C.C.C.’s partner, was identified by the victims in their testimonies, as well as by officials of the Argentine Naval Prefecture who carried out the investigastive tasks, as the person in charge of guarging the entrance and of the secutiry of the brothel.

    A.H.C. worked mostly at night, charging admission to the men who attended the “nightclub”. He also kept an eye on the victims of exploitation and the customers, as they entered the rooms adjoining to the venue.

    The Court described A.H.C.’s contribution as interchangeable, given its nature and the way it fit with the rest of the facts of the case, the structure of the criminal group, and taking into account the fact that the external security duty was sometimes also carried out by another man.

    Defendant:
    R.E.I.
    Gender:
    Male
    Nationality:
    Argentine
    Born:
    1957
    Legal Reasoning:

    A partir de los expedientes administrativos, los testimonios brindados durante el debate oral por las víctimas así como por varios empleados de Migraciones, y otros elementos probatorios incorporados al debate, pudo determinarse la complicidad necesaria de R. E. I. en la petición fraudulenta de beneficios migratorios respecto de M.M.S., Y.M.Y. y S.M.M.

    Los testigos señalaron que R.E.I. se había presentado como requirente, por parte de las ciudadanas dominicanas, para el inicio de trámites migratorios. Simultáneamente, los otros dos co-autores –ambos fallecidos- actuando respectivamente como apoderado y gestor de las nombradas, estructuraron una ficción dirigida a ostentar falsos empleos, a fin de obtener permisos de residencia para las víctimas en el territorio nacional. El propio R.E.I. reconoció haber firmado los contratos en carácter de empleador de las ciudadanas extranjeras sin haber sostenido ningún tipo de conversación previamente relativa al empleo, y  manteniendo además contacto con el apoderado y el gestor de las nombradas. En este sentido, el acusado alegó la supuesta creación de una empresa de limpieza que no llegó a existir.

    El Tribunal concluyó que el hecho delictivo no podría haberse consumado sin la colaboración imprescindible del imputado. Debido a la naturaleza de “bien escaso” del aporte de R.E.I., éste se presenta como necesario para la finalidad perseguida por los autores de lesionar el orden migratorio. Esto llevó al Tribunal a concluir que el imputado había actuado como cómplice necesario del delito.

    Así, el Tribunal resolvió condenar a R.E.I. como partícipe necesario del delito de petición fraudulenta de beneficio migratorio, previsto y reprimido por el art. 118 de la ley 25871, y absolver al mismo del delito de trata de personas doblemente agravado, en concurso ideal con el delito de explotación económica del ejercicio de la prostitución, por no haber sido mantenida dicha acusación en el debate oral.

    The prosecution was able to establish the necessary participation of R.E.I. in the commission of the offense of fraudulent petition of migratory benefits concerning M.M.S., Y.M.Y. and S.M.M., through the testimonies of the victims and of several employees of the Department of Migration at the hearings, administrative records, and other supporting evidence incorporated into the debate.

    Witnesses indicated that R.E.I. had submitted an application to the Migrations Department on behalf of the aforementioned Dominican citizens, requesting the initiation of immigration procedures. Simultaneously, the other two co-authors -both deceased- acting as an attorney and administrator of the named citizens respectively, set up a scheme designed to provide a front of apparently legitimate jobs for the victims, in order to obtain residence permits in their names.

    R.E.I. himself admitted that he had signed the contracts, acting as employer of the foreign citizens, without having held any previous discussion with them regarding the terms of employment. In contrast, he did speak to the attorney and the administrator of the aforementioned women. In this regard, the defendant alleged the creation of a cleaning business which never came to exist.

    The Court concluded that the crime could not have been accomplished without the essential contribution of the defendant. The “scarce good” nature of R.E.I.’s contribution meant that it was necessary to the commission of the crime and the violation of the migratory order. This led the Court to conclude that the defendant had acted as a necessary accomplice to the offense.

    Thus, the Court resolved to find R.E.I. guilty as an accomplice to the crime of fraudulent request of immigration benefits, defined and punished by art. 118 of Law 25871, and to acquit him of the charges of aggravated trafficking in concurrence with economic exploitation of prostitution, as these charges were not sustained during the hearing.

    Defendant:
    C.M.C.
    Gender:
    Male
    Nationality:
    Argentine
    Born:
    1968
    Legal Reasoning:

    El Tribunal sostuvo que se había acreditado fehacientemente la complicidad necesaria de C.M.C. en el plan criminal dirigido por J.D.S., O.V.M. y F.M.S. El Tribunal explicó que el aporte esencial del nombrado consistió en su asidua concurrencia al local, representando a la autoridad pública en su calidad de policía, y manteniendo un trato familiar con J. D. S. La actuación del acusado exacerbó la situación de vulnerabilidad de las víctimas, ya que éstas entendían la presencia del sujeto en el local y su omisión de su deber de auxiliarlas, como una muestra de la estrecha relación entre los encargados del lugar y las autoridades policiales.

    Tanto D.M.J.T. como J.C.Z. identificaron a C.M.C. como el policía que daba aviso cuando se iba a realizar una inspección de inmigración o un allanamiento. De los testimonios de las víctimas se desprende que entre la gran cantidad de descuentos y sanciones económicas impuestos por los imputados en el desarrollo de su actividad delictiva, se encontraban ciertas sumas de dinero que J. D. S. exigía para ser entregado a las autoridades policiales. El Tribunal sostuvo que aunque no se hallaba probada la recepción de dinero por parte de C.M.C., su presencia en el lugar del hecho, y su omisión de sus deberes como agente de la ley lo hacen responsable del delito de incumplimiento de los deberes de funcionario público y omisión de perseguir delitos. Asimismo, el Tribunal concluyó que durante sus asiduas visitas a aquél local, el imputado necesariamente percibía con sus sentidos la explotación económica de la prostitución ajena. Sin embargo, en vez de cumplir con su rol institucional de protección, se convirtió en un colaborador en la trama delictiva, convirtiéndose en cooperador necesario de la trata de las víctimas para su explotación sexual.

    The Court held that it had been conclusively proved that C.M.C. had aided and abetted the criminal plan directed by J.D.S., O.V.M. and F.M.S. The Court explained that the defendant’s frequent presence at the venue representing public authority and displaying his friendly relationship with J.D.S., constituted an essential contribution to the comission of the crime. The defendant’s actions aggravated the vulnerability of the victims. The victims understood the subject’s presence at the venue and his omission of his duty to protect and assist them, as evidence of the close relationship between the law enforcement authorities and the people responsible for their exploitation.

    Both D.M.J.C. and J.C.Z. identified C.M.C. as the policeman who was responsible for alerting them whenever a police raid or immigration inspection was to be conducted. The testimonies of the victims indicate that among the many discounts and economic penalties imposed on them by the defendants, were certain sums of money retained by J.D.S., supposedly to be paid out to the police. The Court held that even if it hadn’t been proved that C.M.C. effectively received any of this money, his presence at the brothel, and his omission of his duty as a law enforcement officer, make him responsible of the offense of breach of the dutis of public officials and failure to prosecute crimes. Similarly, the Court concluded that during his many visits to that venue, the defendant necessarily perceived the economic exploitation of the prostitution of others, which was taking place at the brothel. However, instead of fulfilling his institutional role and providing protection to the victims, he became a contributor to the criminal plot, becoming an abettor of the crime of human trafficking for sexual exploitation.

    Regarding the defendant’s sentence, the Court considered that the illegality of the crime of human trafficking was aggravated in his case, by the fact that the defendant was a policeman. While that circumstance –his employment as a policeman- is an essential requirement of art. 248, regarding it as an aggravated circumstance of the crime of human trafficking does not constitute double punishment.

    Charges / Claims / Decisions

    Defendant:
    R.A.A.C.
    Legislation / Statute / Code:

    Art. 145 bis of the Penal Code

    Charge details:
    Human Trafficking for the Purpose of Sexual Exploitation
    Verdict:
    Acquittal
    Defendant:
    C.C.C.
    Legislation / Statute / Code:

    Art. 145 bis inc. 2 and 3 of the Penal Code

    Charge details:
    Aiding and Abetting the Aggravated Crime of Human Trafficking for the Purpose of Sexual Exploitation
    Verdict:
    Guilty
    Legislation / Statute / Code:

    Art. 127 of the Penal Code

    Charge details:
    Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others
    Verdict:
    Guilty
    Term of Imprisonment:
    3 years
    Defendant:
    J.D.S.
    Legislation / Statute / Code:

    Art. 145 bis inc. 2 and 3 of the Penal Code

    Charge details:
    Aggravated Crime of Human Trafficking for the Purpose of Sexual Exploitation
    Verdict:
    Guilty
    Legislation / Statute / Code:

    Art. 127 of the Penal Code

    Charge details:
    Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others
    Verdict:
    Guilty
    Term of Imprisonment:
    7 years
    Defendant:
    O.V.M.
    Legislation / Statute / Code:

    Art. 145 bis inc. 2 and 3 of the Penal Code

    Charge details:
    Aggravated Crime of Human Trafficking for the Purpose of Sexual Exploitation
    Verdict:
    Guilty
    Legislation / Statute / Code:

    Art 127 of the Penal Code

    Charge details:
    Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others
    Verdict:
    Guilty
    Defendant:
    F.M.S.
    Legislation / Statute / Code:

    Art. 145 bis inc. 2 and 3 of the Penal Code

    Charge details:
    Aggravated Crime of Human Trafficking for the Purpose of Sexual Exploitation
    Verdict:
    Guilty
    Legislation / Statute / Code:

    Art 127 of the Penal Code

    Charge details:
    Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others
    Verdict:
    Guilty
    Term of Imprisonment:
    5 years
    Defendant:
    A.H.C.
    Legislation / Statute / Code:

    Art. 145 bis inc. 2 and 3 of the Penal Code

    Charge details:
    Aiding and Abetting the Aggravated Crime of Human Trafficking for the Purpose of Sexual Exploitation
    Verdict:
    Guilty
    Legislation / Statute / Code:

    Art. 127 of the Penal Code

    Charge details:
    Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others
    Verdict:
    Guilty
    Term of Imprisonment:
    3 years
    Defendant:
    R.E.I.
    Legislation / Statute / Code:

    Art. 118 of the Migrations Act

    Charge details:
    Using False Documents to Petition a Migratory Benefit for a Third Person Before the Authorities
    Verdict:
    Guilty
    Term of Imprisonment:
    1 year
    Defendant:
    C.M.C.
    Legislation / Statute / Code:

    Art. 145 bis inc. 2 and 3 of the Penal Code

    Charge details:
    Aiding and Abetting the Aggravated Crime of Human Trafficking for the Purpose of Sexual Exploitation
    Verdict:
    Guilty
    Legislation / Statute / Code:

    Art. 127 of the Penal Code

    Charge details:
    Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others
    Verdict:
    Acquittal
    Legislation / Statute / Code:

    Art. 248 of the Penal Code

    Charge details:
    Failure to Carry Out the Duties of Public Officials and Failure to Prosecute Crimes
    Verdict:
    Guilty
    Term of Imprisonment:
    4 years 6 Months

    Court

    Oral Federal Criminal Court of Mar del Plata [Tribunal Oral en lo Criminal Federal de Mar del Plata]