2nd instance:

On March 4, 2012 the Superior Court of Cartagena affirmed the 1^st instance judgment in its entirety.

3rd instance:

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.