The four defendants, Mr Nersisyan, Mr Arakelyan, Ms Makarova, and Mr Malkhasyan were accused of being involved in a trafficking ring that recruited girls from Armenia under false promises of providing them with babysitting or maid jobs in Dubai, UAE. It was alleged that in 2000 Ms Makarova visited Dubai, staying at the home of Ms Dbr Ano (also known as “Ms Malkhasyan”, the sister of Mr Malkhasyan). Ms Ano, who had previously been convicted of living off the earnings of prostitution and other offences, supervised Ms Makarova when she began to engage in sex work. Ms Makarova was eventually caught and deported back to Armenia. Following this, Ms Ano suggested to Ms Makarova that she would pay her US$300 for every girl she could recruit and send to Dubai.
Ms Makarova persuaded her neighbor, Ms R, to travel to Dubai to work as babysitter or maid. Ms R was sent to Mr Nersisyan, who then arranged for he transport to Dubai. At around the same time, Mr Arakelyan, Ms Ano’s friend, recruited another girl, Ms M, to travel to Mr Malkhasyan who arranged her travel to Dubai.
Upon arrival in Dubai, Ms Ano met the women, confiscated their passports and forced them to engage in sex work in order to pay off a US$15,000 “debt”, supposedly for the cost of transportation. Ms R gave testimony that she would earn US$500 from each client but was never able to keep any of the money. She claimed to have earned a total of over US$20,000 for Ms Ano whilst under her control. One of the women gave testimony that they had suffered cruel treatment from Ms Ano and her colleagues. Furthermore, the women gave testimony in court that they were divorced and had never engaged in prostitution before. Whilst the women were sometimes allowed to make phone calls home they were fearful that telling anyone about the situation would result in beatings.
On 4 August 2005, the prosecutor charged the four defendants with violating Article 132, Part 2 (human trafficking) of the Criminal Code (Armenia). Ms Ano was never charged because she died in a car accident in Dubai in September of 2005 (reportedly under “mysterious circumstances”).
Armenia
Emiratos Árabes Unidos1st Instance:
Court of First Instance, Armavir, 11 November 2005, convicted and sentenced.
2nd Instance:
Court of Appeal, Yerevan, 2 March 2006, convicted (new charges) and sentenced.
1st Instance:
On 11 November 2005, the Court of First Instance in Armavir handed down its judgment in relation to the four defendants.
Mr Nersisyan was convicted of violating Article 132, Part 2, Points 1 and 4, of the Criminal Code (Armenia) but based on Article 64, the court sentenced him only to two years imprisonment despite a request by the prosecution for a sentence of five years.
2nd Instance
Following the trial in the Court of First Instance, the Office of the Prosecutor General appealed the ruling on the basis that the sentences were too light. Mr Boshnagyan, a senior prosecutor in the trafficking and illegal immigration department, argued that "the court did not take into account the danger that the crime posed to society, it did not take into account the character of the defendants, and the sentences it issued were clearly too lenient.”
On 2 March 2006, the Court of Appeal decided to reclassify the original charges, replacing Article 132 (Human Trafficking) with Article 262 (Organization of Prostitution). The defendants were subsequently resentenced on the new charges. Mr Nersisyan received a sentence of two years imprisonment for his involvement in the trafficking ring.
The prosecution later announced that they intend to appeal the sentence because there was no reason given for the reclassification of the original charges and the sentences were too lenient.
1st Instance:
On 11 November 2005, the Court of First Instance in Armavir sentenced Mr Arakelyan, who had been convicted of similar offences twice before, to five years and four months imprisonment as per the prosecutions request. Due to the prior offences there was no mitigation of the sentence.
2nd Instance
Following the trial in the Court of First Instance, the Office of the Prosecutor General appealed the ruling on the basis that the sentences were too light. Mr Boshnagyan, a senior prosecutor in the trafficking and illegal immigration department, argued that "the court did not take into account the danger that the crime posed to society, it did not take into account the character of the defendants, and the sentences it issued were clearly too lenient.”
On 2 March 2006, the Court of Appeals decided to reclassify the original charges, replacing Article 132 (Human Trafficking) with Article 262 (Organization of Prostitution). The defendants were subsequently resentenced on the new charges. Mr Arakeylyan was sentenced to three years and ten months imprisonment.
The prosecution later announced that they intend to appeal the sentence because there was no reason given for the reclassification of the original charges and the sentences were too lenient.
1st Instance:
On 11 November 2005, the Court of First Instance in Armavir sentenced Ms Makarova was sentenced to two years imprisonment on the basis that she had no prior convictions.
2nd Instance
Following the trial in the Court of First Instance, the Office of the Prosecutor-General appealed the 1st instance decision on the basis that the sentences were too light. Mr Boshnagyan, a senior prosecutor in the trafficking and illegal immigration department, argued that "the court did not take into account the danger that the crime posed to society, it did not take into account the character of the defendants, and the sentences it issued were clearly too lenient.”
On 2 March 2006, the Court of Appeals decided to reclassify the original charges, replacing Article 132 (Human Trafficking) with Article 262 (Organization of Prostitution). The defendants were subsequently resentenced on the new charges. Ms Makarova received a sentenced of two years imprisonment for her involvement in the trafficking ring.
The prosecution later announced that they intend to appeal the sentence because there was no reason given for the reclassification of the original charges and the sentences were too lenient.
1st Instance:
On 11 November 2005 the Court of First Instance in Armavir convicted Mr P. Malkhasyan of two violations of Article 262, Part 1 (Organization of prostitution, pimping) and Article 132, Part 2 (Human trafficking) of the Criminal Code (Armenia). The prosecutor requested a prison sentence of five and a half years, however Judge Tigran Petrosyan only sentenced him to two years imprisonment. It was held that Article 64 of the Criminal Code (Armenia) allowed for the sentence to be reduced in mitigating circumstances. The reduction in sentence was based on a document presented during trial that stated Mr Malkhasyan had three persons in his care and suffered from bad health.
2nd Instance
Following the trial in the Court of First Instance, The Office of the Prosecutor General appealed the First Instance decision on the basis that the sentences were too light. Mr Boshnagyan, a senior prosecutor in the trafficking and illegal immigration department, argued that "the court did not take into account the danger that the crime posed to society, it did not take into account the character of the defendants, and the sentences it issued were clearly too lenient.”
On 2 March 2006 the Court of Appeal decided to reclassify the original charges, replacing Article 132 (Human Trafficking) with Article 262 (Organization of Prostitution). The defendants were subsequently resentenced on the new charges. Mr Malkhasyan received a sentence of two years imprisonment for his involvement in the trafficking ring.
The prosecution later announced that they intend to appeal the sentence because there was no reason given for the reclassification of the original charges and the sentences were too lenient.
Court of First Instance, Armavir
HETQ Online (Association of Investigative Journalists), 'The Court is Soft on Human Traffickers', 14 Nov 2005, available at http://hetq.am/eng/print/9487/
HETQ Online (Association of Investigative Journalists), 'Light Sentences for Trafficking Ring', 20 Mar 2006, available at http://hetq.am/eng/articles/10073/light-sentences-for-trafficking-ring.html
