Between July 2016 and March 2017, the first defendant, M. E., forced six children, aged eight to 14 to beg on a daily basis in Tuzla, a town in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the surrounding areas. TM.E. forced the children to beg without adequate clothing or protection in extreme conditions, including in temperatures below -15 Celsius. He directed the victims to beg passersby for money and expected them to collect each day at least BAM 10-20 (EUR 5-10). The defendant confiscated all of the proceeds and would not allow the victims to purchase even basic items, such as food. If the victims tried to refuse, M.E. would verbally abuse them, often screaming, and would physically assault the oldest victim, O.DJ. In addition to begging, M.E. forced the children to collect iron and other raw materials from garbage sites, which he would then sell, keeping the proceeds for himself. The first defendant also forced the children to work for a furniture company, where the oldest child, O.DJ., was injured due to the lack of proper safety equipment.
Charges against the second defendant, S. A. the first defendant’s common law spouse, related to her gross neglect of her parental duties. Namely, she allowed the first defendant to force her children to beg, including in extreme weather conditions. Each defendant is alleged to be the parent of three of the victims.
The Tuzla Cantonal Prosecutor’s Office charged two persons in relation to this case, the first defendant, M.E. with trafficking in human beings, pursuant to Article 210.a.2. Criminal Code of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CC FBiH), for forcing six children to beg for money even in extreme weather conditions, while second defendant, S. A., mother of three children was charged with child neglect under Article 219 (3) CC FBiH as, in her capacity of a parent, she grossly neglected her duties by allowing the first defendant to force children to beg and to exploit their labor for his own benefit.
Following confirmation of the indictment, the first defendant, M. E. pleaded not guilty to the charges, while the second defendant S. A. pleaded guilty to the charges. Therefore, the case against S. A. was separated and further proceedings, including deliberation on the guilty plea and pronouncement of the verdict, were held before the Tuzla Municipal Court, which had subject matter jurisdiction over the specific charges against her.
On 7 November 2017, the Tuzla Municipal Court held a hearing to deliberate on the guilty plea entered by the second defendant, S. A.. The prosecution charged second defendant with neglect of child or juvenile, per Article 219 (3) CC FBiH, committed by way of her allowing the first defendant to force the children to engage in begging for money on the streets of Tuzla, noting that the first defendant has been charged in the same case with trafficking in human beings, per Article 210a (2) CC FBiH. During the main trial held on 10 November 2017, the judge pronounced suspended sentence against second defendant of one year imprisonment, suspended in favor of four 4 years of probation, which is the maximum suspended sentence provided by the Criminal Code of FBiH.
Following a 16 November 2017 hearing on the deliberation of the plea bargaining agreement (PBA), the first defendant M. E. signed a PBA. In the presence of the parties and the ex officio defense attorney, the judge fully deliberated the proposed PBA and pronounced the sanction stipulated therein, namely, five years of imprisonment, which represents the minimum penalty for the offence at hand. The accused expressed his remorse and professed that he would never repeat these offences. Following the pronouncement of the verdict, the court released the first defendant M. without ordering restrictive measures.
Other clarifying information:
After the second defendant S. A. pleaded guilty to the charges, the court pronounced suspended sentence and extended the restriction order for additional two months. By contrast, the court did not impose a restriction order on first defendant M.E. after his release from custody.
According to information provided by second defendant S. A. at the plea hearing, during the criminal proceeding, some of the minor victims were placed in the Tuzla Home for Children without Parental Care while she was confined to the Mihatovići Collective Center, Tuzla Municipality.
The court ordered pretrial custody from 14 March 2017 for the first defendant, who was on probation for a previous offence (illegal arms possession). Related court decisions on 10 April 2017 and 13 June 2017 extended this custody. The court granted the prosecutor’s request to extend custody following the confirmation of the indictment on the grounds that first defendant may repeat the offence or try to influence potential witnesses. In relation to second defendant S. A., the court sustained prosecutor’s request and issued prohibitive measures - restraining orders prohibiting her from contacting the first defendants and all the victims, by the corresponding court decisions dated 14 March.2017 and 07 July 2017.
Trafficking in Human Beings
The Tuzla Cantonal Court found that the guilty plea itself and evidence submitted by the prosecution and confirmed in the plea agreement provided sufficient evidence of the defendant’s guilt.
Neglecting and maltreating of child or juvenile
The Tuzla Municipal Court found that the guilty plea itself and evidence submitted by the prosecution provided sufficient evidence of the defendant’s guilt.
The Tuzla Cantonal Court (Kantonalni sud u Tuzli)
The Tuzla Canton Prosecutor v. E. M., Case no: T030KT0064969 17 Indictment of 23 August 2017
The Tuzla Cantonal Court, Case no: 030K016017 17 K First instance Verdict (PBA) of 16 November 2017
An English translation of the indictment and the judgment is not available
The case represents the first attempt by law enforcement and judicial institutions in Tuzla Canton to tackle exploitation of children for begging, pursuant to the amended criminal legislation of the Federation of BiH. As of 2016, the Federation of BiH provides for an offence of trafficking in human beings, and this case at hand represents the first application of this offence to child begging. Under prosecutorial supervision, the Department for Organised Crime within the Tuzla Ministry of Interior conducted the investigation. The Cantonal Court supported the implementation of special investigative measures.
A review of the indictment indicated that the court engaged a child psychologist to evaluate the victims and determine the psychological and emotional consequences of sustained abuse of this nature of the victims’ wellbeing and development. A neuropsychiatrist assessed the mental health of the defendants and examined them for psychopathic traits and signs of substance abuse.
According to the indictment, an ex officio attorney represented the first defendant M. E., and there was no indication of the engagement of a defence attorney on behalf of the second defendant S. A.