This case originated on the 19th of May of 2009, after the Argentinean Federal Police received an anonymous call made by a female caller, who informed about a cabaret near the town of Riestra, where Paraguayan and Dominican minors were working against their will.
The Office of the Prosecution assigned the investigation to the Human Trafficking Division of the Argentinean Federal Police. This investigation included activities such as enquiries on the ownership of several vehicles, local licenses, undercover operations at the suspected premises, wire tapping, collection of the testimonies of the victims, etc.
As a result the police was able to establish the existence of a group of people, who they identified as O. H. Di S., R. R. C., J. O. C., M. S. De V., J. C., S. C. G., a male known as “A.” and others, who, according to the investigators, acted in an organized manner, to recruit, transport, and transfer adult women from outside the country, to harbour them in Argentina and to sexually exploit them.
The investigators concluded that the crime of human trafficking was being committed in three different locations: 1) at the cabaret “Tu X.”, operated by R. R. C., O. J. C., M. S. De V. and O. H. Di S.; 2) at the cabaret “El X.”, located in the town of Salto, and managed by S. C. G. and A. P., currently a fugitive -the profits of which would also be perceived by the aforementioned De V., the C. brothers, Di S. and a person named Z. A. G.-; and 3) at the cabaret “Mi X.”, located in the town of Pehuajo, managed by the C. brothers and by De V., and in which O. H. Di S. also took part.
The activity consisted in recruiting women, most of them in a position of vulnerability and of Paraguayan nationality, in order to take them to Argentina. The alleged traffickers would deceive the victims with false promises of employment, working as waitresses in bars. Once taken into the cabarets, they would be forced to do what is known as “drinks” and “passes”, which means drinking with customers and providing sexual services working as prostitutes. The earnings that the women generated with this work would be shared between the workers, who would receive a 50%, and the owners of these brothels, who would take the remaining 50%. The women were harboured at the brothels, where they had to stay at all times: they could only leave to send money to their families abroad. All the expenses the women generated, including the cost of the travel to Argentina, were discounted from the money they earned with the aforementioned “drinks” and “passes”. A system of fines and penalties was also in place, for those who did not want to perform such services or in case the women had any arguments.
At the time of the search, at least 6 women of Paraguayan nationality required the assistance of the Office for the Rescue and Assistance of Persons Affected by Human Trafficking.
According to the investigation, the defendants fulfilled different roles in the organization: at the establishment located in 25 de Mayo, R. was in charge of maintenance, F. would charge at the entrance and also sold drinks at the bar, while N.E.G. was the exclusive driver and the person responsible for transporting the women to the city centre, where they would send money to their countries of origin; R. was a receptionist with a certain level in the hierarchy of the business; J.C. provided the women with clothing and shoes, the price of which was directly discounted from their earnings; F. P. G. performed hair dressing duties and purchased personal items for the victims. At the “cabaret” in Pehuajo, R. and C. A. G. worked as barmen and were also in charge of collecting the money; F. L. D. G. (a.k.a. “M.”) worked as a barman and carried out maintenance tasks.
La causa tuvo origen el 19 de mayo de 2009, a partir de una llamada telefónica anónima de una persona de sexo femenino recibido en la Subdelegación de la Policía Federal Argentina, en el que manifestaba su conocimiento de que en un cabaret camino a Riestra trabajaban contra su voluntad menores de edad de nacionalidad paraguaya y dominicana.
La fiscalía le asigna entonces las tareas investigativas a la División Trata de Personas de la Policía Federal Argentina, tareas que incluyen averiguaciones del dominio de automotores, habilitación municipal, tareas encubiertas en los locales, escuchas telefónicas, testimonios de las presuntas víctimas, etc.
Como resultado de ello se estableció la existencia de un grupo de personas, que resultaron ser O. H. Di S., R. R. C., J. O. C., M. S. De V., J. C., S. C. G., un masculino de nombre “A.” y otros más que, a criterio de los investigadores, actuaban en forma organizada dedicándose a captar, transportar y trasladar desde el exterior del país a mujeres mayores de 18 años de edad, acogerlas en el país y explotarlas sexualmente.
Concluyeron que la trata de personas se cometía en tres lugares: 1) en el cabaret “Tu X.”, a cargo de R. R. C., O. J. C., M. S. De V. y O. H. Di S.; 2) en el cabaret “El X.”, sito en la localidad de Salto regenteado por S. C. G. y A. P., actualmente prófugo, a cuyos beneficios económicos tampoco serían ajenos los nombrados De V., los hermanos C., Di S. y una persona llamada Z. A. G.; y 3) en el cabaret “Mi X.”, ubicado en la localidad de Pehuajo, regenteado por los hermanos C. y De V., no resultando ajeno a los hechos y a las ganancias obtenidas en el mismo, O. H. Di S.
La actividad consistía en reclutar mujeres, generalmente en estado de vulnerabilidad y de la República del Paraguay, para ser traídas con falsas promesas de trabajar como camareras en bares. Una vez ingresadas a los cabarets debían hacer “copas” y “pases”, entendido esto último como el ejercicio de la prostitución dentro o fuera de los locales. Las ganancias que estas actividades generaban aparentemente se repartían en un 50% para las “alternadoras” y un 50% para los dueños de los locales. Las mujeres eran alojadas generalmente en el lugar, allí debían quedarse y sólo podían ir al centro de la localidad para realizar giros a sus familias en el exterior. Todos los gastos que generasen, incluido el viaje hacia el lugar, se les descontaba de lo ganado por las “copas” o “pases”, existiendo inclusive un régimen de sanciones y multas para el caso que no quisiesen realizar esa actividades o tuviesen algún problema entre ellas.
Al momento de los allanamientos al menos 6 mujeres de nacionalidad paraguaya requirieron la actuación de la Oficina de Rescate y Acompañamiento a Personas Damnificadas por el Delito de Trata, organismo que las contuvo y entrevistó.
Según la investigación los imputados cumplían diferentes roles en la organización: en el local de 25 de Mayo, R. se encargaba del mantenimiento, F. cobraba entrada en la puerta y luego vendía bebidas en la barra en tanto N. E. G. era remisero exclusivo y se encargaba de trasladar a las “alternadoras” hacia el centro de la ciudad donde generalmente realizaban giros de dinero a sus países de origen, las esperaba y las lleva de vuelta; R. era mozo de mostrador con cierta jerarquía dentro del local; J. C. proveía a aquellas de vestimenta y calzados, cuyo valor directamente se les descontaba de sus ganancias; F. P. G. efectuaba tareas de peluquería y la obtención de elementos personales para las víctimas. En el de Pehuajo R. y C. A. G. se desempeñaban como barman y encargados de la caja; F. L. D. G. (alías “M.”) ejercía funciones de mantenimiento y barman.
Argentina
ParaguayThe Court held that it had not been sufficiently proven that the defendants had committed the crime of human trafficking.
In this case, the Court held that under the prevailing circumstances, there was a reasonable doubt about what had happened and about the potential role of the defendants in it. This reasonable doubt, as commanded by art. 3 of the National Criminal Procedure Code, operates in the defendants’ favor, determining their absolution.
It is noteworthy that in the case only one of the alleged victims attended the trial, with important contradictions in her testimony, and that the defense was not able to challenge the testimonies of the other witnesses and their statements before the prosecution. This, in turn, led the judges to hold that the doctrine of the Supreme Court of Justice was fully applicable to this case, as expressed in the case “B., A.” (Ruling 329:5526), which in this particular case meant excluding these testimonies from the evidentiary body that was to be analyzed.
Similarly, the Court considered that the recordings obtained through the wire taps carried out during the investigation, as well as the testimonies given by the police men who completed this investigation, provided evidence of the mere existence of the “cabarets”, and of the exercise of prostitution, but that they did not prove the suspected instances of human trafficking. For this reason, they would not have evidentiary value in this case, in order to establish the criminal responsibility of the defendants.
El Tribunal consideró que la comisión de los delitos imputados en este caso no había sido suficientemente probada. El Tribunal mantuvo que las condiciones dadas en este caso generaban una duda razonable acerca de lo acontecido y la participación que en ello pudieron tener los imputados, la que por imperativo del Código Penal, operaba en su favor y determinaba su absolución.
Se resalta que en el caso sólo una de las presuntas víctimas compareció al debate, con marcadas contradicciones en su testimonio, y que las defensas no pudieron confrontar los dichos del resto de los testigos de cargo en su declaración ante la fiscalía, considerando los jueces que ello obligaba a excluir los mismos del cuadro probatorio a analizar.
De igual modo, el Tribunal consideró que las escuchas telefónicas realizadas durante la investigación, así como las declaraciones prestadas pos los policías que llevaron a cabo dichas tareas de investigación, sólo daban cuenta de la existencia de los “cabaret” y el ejercicio de la prostitución asociado a los mismos, pero no de los supuestos de trata de personas que habían dado motivo al caso. Por esa razón, carecían de valor probatorio en este caso a fin de establecer la responsabilidad criminal de los imputados.
Art. 145 bis Penal Code (Argentina)
Human trafficking where the victims were over 18 years old (aggravated by the high number of victims and by the participation of more than three perpetrators in an organized manner)
Art. 145 bis Penal Code (Argentina)
Human trafficking where the victims were over 18 years old (aggravated by the high number of victims and by the participation of more than three perpetrators in an organized manner)
Art. 145 bis Penal Code (Argentina)
Human trafficking where the victims were over 18 years old (aggravated by the high number of victims and by the participation of more than three perpetrators in an organized manner)
Art. 145 bis Penal Code (Argentina)
Human trafficking where the victims were over 18 years old (aggravated by the high number of victims and by the participation of more than three perpetrators in an organized manner)
Art. 145 bis Penal Code (Argentina)
Human trafficking where the victims were over 18 years old (aggravated by the high number of victims and by the participation of more than three perpetrators in an organized manner)
Art. 145 bis Penal Code (Argentina)
Human trafficking where the victims were over 18 years old (aggravated by the high number of victims and by the participation of more than three perpetrators in an organized manner)
Art. 145 bis Penal Code (Argentina)
Human trafficking where the victims were over 18 years old (aggravated by the high number of victims and by the participation of more than three perpetrators in an organized manner)
Art. 145 bis Penal Code (Argentina)
Human trafficking where the victims were over 18 years old (aggravated by the high number of victims and by the participation of more than three perpetrators in an organized manner)
Art. 145 bis Penal Code (Argentina)
Human trafficking where the victims were over 18 years old (aggravated by the high number of victims and by the participation of more than three perpetrators in an organized manner)
Art. 145 bis Penal Code (Argentina)
Human trafficking where the victims were over 18 years old (aggravated by the high number of victims and by the participation of more than three perpetrators in an organized manner)
Oral Criminal Federal Court Nº 5 of San Martín
The Court granted great significance to the fact that only one of the victims was present during the trial, and that deep contradictions in her testimony became evident at this point. Similarly, the statements made by the witnesses when they testified before the prosecution were also excluded, since they could not be questioned during the trial stage.
Observations and evidence in this case:
1) At least 6 Paraguayan women requested the assistance of the Rescue Office at the time of the search.
2) The Court considered that the allegedly organized demeanor of the defendants, in order to commit the crime of Trafficking, had not been proved, as the majority of the statements regarding this point did not find evidentiary support during the trial stage.
3) The Court considered that neither the wiretaps nor the testimonies of the police officers provided evidence against the defendants. Regarding the testimonies given by the police officers, they only accounted for the existence of the “cabarets” but not for a case of trafficking.
4) The testimony of two of the women involved in prostitution in two of the three investigated brothels was also taken into account. The women vigorously denied being victims of trafficking, and provided many examples of their freedom of action.
“The defense was unable to challenge the witnesses’ statements at the only time when it was possible, this is, when they appeared to give evidence before the prosecution; which made the doctrine of the Supreme Court of Justice fully applicable to this case, as articulated in the case “Benitez, Anibal” (rulings 329:5526), which in this particular case meant excluding these statements from the evidence that was to be analyzed”.
Observaciones y pruebas examinadas en el caso:
El Tribunal le dio vital importancia al hecho de que sólo una de las víctimas concurriese a la audiencia de debate, momento en el que se evidenciaron profundas contradicciones en su testimonio. Asimismo, excluyó los dichos que los testigos de cargo vertieron en sus declaraciones ante la fiscalía, al no poderse confrontarlos en el debate.
1) Al momento de los allanamientos, al menos 6 mujeres paraguayas solicitaron la asistencia de la Oficina de Rescate.
2) El Tribunal entendió que el pretendido actuar organizado de los imputados, para cometer el delito de Trata, no se hallaba acreditado ya que la mayoría de las afirmaciones al respecto no encontraron respaldo probatorio durante el debate.
3) Se consideró que ni las escuchas telefónicas, ni las declaraciones testimoniales de los policías, aportaron nada en contra de los imputados. Respecto de los testimonios de los policías, sólo dieron cuenta de la existencia de los “cabarets”, pero no de algún supuesto de trata.
4) Se tuvo en cuenta el testimonio de dos de las mujeres en situación de prostitución en dos de los tres prostíbulos investigados, las que negaron categóricamente casos de trata, dando amplias referencias de su libertad de acción.
“Las defensas no pudieron confrontar los dichos de los testigos de cargo en la única oportunidad en que, en definitiva, ello resultó posible, esto es en su declaración ante la fiscalía; lo que hacía plenamente aplicable la doctrina de la CSJN expuesta en la causa “Benitez, Anibal” (fallos 329:5526) que en el caso concreto significaba excluir los mismos del cuadro probatorio a analizar.”