The court retained that victim P.D. was sold to defendant C.N., after having been victim of other transactions. Together with P.D., two other victims, M.C.A. and S.R. were kept against their will at the domicile of defendants C.N. and P.N. and forced to prostitute. Victim M.C. attempted on several occasions to escape, but she did not succeed, but it was in the end victim P.D. who succeeded to escalade a window and alert the police. Subsequently, the police found the other two victims at the defendants’ domicile.
Romania1st Instance:
Bucharest Tribunal
2 December 2008
Sentence no. 1431
The Bucharest Tribunal sentenced defendant C.C.N to a 9-year imprisonment term and a 9-year prohibition of certain rights for the crime of human trafficking provided under article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking and the crime of juvenile trafficking provided under article 13, paragraphs 1 and 3 of Law no.678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking.
Defendant P.N. was convicted to the same detention term for acting as an accomplice to the above mentioned crimes.
Each defendant was obliged to the payment of judiciary expenses amounting to RON 4000 (approximately USD 1200).
2nd Instance:
Bucharest Court of Appeal
15 April
Decision no. 102/A
Bucharest Court of Appeal partially overturned the sentence.
In its retrial, the court of appeal made a different legal classification of the crimes and it decided that each defendant committed two juvenile trafficking crimes, instead of one crime in a continuous form as it was ruled by the 1st instance. Following this new classification of the crimes, the defendants were each sentenced to an imprisonment term of 5 years and 6 months.
The Bucharest Tribunal sentenced defendant C.C.N to a 9-year imprisonment term and a 9-year prohibition of certain rights for the crime of human trafficking provided under article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking and the crime of juvenile trafficking provided under article 13, paragraphs 1 and 3 of Law no.678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking.
Defendant P.N. was convicted to the same detention term for acting as an accomplice to the above mentioned crimes.
Each defendant was obliged to the payment of judiciary expenses amounting to RON 4000 (approximately USD 1200)
The court retained that victim P.D. was sold to defendant C.N., after having been victim of other transactions. Together with P.D., two other victims, M.C.A. and S.R. were kept against their will at the domicile of defendants C.N. and P.N. and forced to prostitute. Victim M.C. attempted on several occasions to escape, but she did not succeed, but it was in the end victim P.D. who succeeded to escalade a window and alert the police. Subsequently, the police found the other two victims at the defendants’ domicile.
The court established that the crimes were perpetrated by defendant C.N. in the period December 2004 – January 2005, and that two of the victims were minor. Defendant P.N. brought his contribution to the crimes by guarding the victims and preventing them from escaping and by transporting them to different male persons.
Article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Law no. 678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking and article 13, paragraphs 1 and 3 of Law no.678/2001 on the prevention and control of human trafficking
2nd instance:
The public prosecution office and the defendants appealed the sentence. By criminal decision no. 102/A, dated 15 April, the Bucharest Court of Appeal partially overturned the sentence.
In its retrial, the court of appeal made a different legal classification of the crimes and it decided that each defendant committed two juvenile trafficking crimes, instead of one crime in a continuous form as it was ruled by the 1st instance. Following this new classification of the crimes, the defendants were each sentenced to an imprisonment term of 5 years and 6 months.
3rd instance:
The High Court of Cassation and Justice issued criminal decision no. 3653 on 6 November 2009 by which it upheld the appeal on law made by the public prosecution office.
The court decided that the legal classification made by the appeal court was not in line with previous decisions of the High Court and that the crimes perpetrated against the minor victims should have been classified as representing one sole crime of juvenile trafficking committed in a continuous form. Also, the court decided that the punishments should be set at an imprisonment term of 6 years.
The appeals made by the defendants were not upheld.
High Court of Cassation and Justice
