On November 14, 2007 Ricardo Forero Cañas was found to be staying at Hotel Rivera since October 28 with his son G.M.T. G.M.T. is deaf-mute and was found begging in various districts and municipalities. The defendant had promised G.M.T. to use the money for medical treatments, headphones and clothing, however to that date no money had been given to G.M.T. In the same room where the Defendant was staying, three other youth, L.P.P.R, G.M.T., and E.F.C.C. were found who were also deaf-mute.
Juzgado Penal del Circuito de Manange [Circuit Criminal Court of Magangué]
Septembre 15, 2012
Tribunal Superior de Cartagena [Superior Court of Cartagena]
May 4, 2010
On February 19, 2008 the prosecution indicted Defendant for the crime of trafficking. The case went to the Circuit Criminal Court of Magangué and after conducting the trial, on May 30, 2008, defendant was found guilty of the criminal offense of trafficking. Defendant was sentenced to 13 years of prison and disqualification from the exercise of his rights and of public office for the same period of deprivation of liberty.
Law 985 of 2005, Article 3
On March 4, 2012 the Superior Court of Cartagena affirmed the 1st instance judgment in its entirety.
Defendant argues that Article 3 of Law 985 of 2005 was misinterpreted and this led to the abuse of Article 10 of the Penal Code and 232 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that Section 6 and 13 of the Constitution and 7 and 9 of the Penal Code were ignored. He argues that the facts did not fully support the crime of human trafficking. He argued that his behaviour did not fit into the different elements that constituted the crime because it was never proven that the victims were removed from their social environment. He asserts that the court should apply the principal of in dubio pro reo. However, the court explains that when censorship is postulated by way of direct infringement of substantive law, the appellant is accepting the facts and evidence proven in the judgement are properly appreciated and consequently the credibility of the evidence and factual events is not revisited. Furthermore, in order to proceed with an appeal the appellant must demonstrate that the judge selected a standard that was not for that matter, that the judge omitted the application of a law that would have solved the procedural or legal relationship, or that the judge chose the correct standard but did not apply it according to the text of the law. The Supreme Court held that appellant failed to show how there was an erroneous interpretation of Article 3 of Law 985 of 2005 and the petition for appeal was inadmissible for lack of precision and clarity. Furthermore, although the penalty of a crime of trafficking in persons usually must include imprisonment and fees, the lower court excluded the fine and this was not changed by the Supreme Court.
Corte Suprema De Justicia [Supreme Court of Justice]
Sentence- Proceso n.º 34728