Base de données Jurisprudence

Traite des personnes

Case No. 39257

Résumé des faits

Los hechos se remontan al mes de agosto del año 2007 en la ciudad de Funza del departamento de Cundinamarca. En tal fecha, la señora O.L., de profesión abogada, recibe de la señora C.N. la suma de $7.000.000 de pesos (3.500USD, aprox.) como honorarios a cambio de sus servicios de mediación en la supuesta adopción de un infante de pocos días de edad.

Los condenados, de profesión médico y enfermera respectivamente, realizaron todos los procedimientos a fin de expedir el certificado de nacido vivo como hijo biológico de la señora C.N. del infante, con el cual se realizó la respectiva inscripción en el registro civil.

En el proceso no se indagó sobre, ni se pruebó la procedencia del infante, ni el origen del mismo, ni la razón por la que éste se hallaba en poder de los condenados y la aludida intermediaria.

En el mes de septiembre del mismo año, el Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar Familiar – ICBF, a partir de una denuncia que alertaba sobre la presencia irregular del infante en poder de la señora C.N., realizó requerimiento para indagar sobre la procedencia del referido menor. Dicho requerimiento obligó a la señora C.N. a acudir a la intermediaria y los condenados, quienes decidieron practicar una cirugía para simular una falsa cesaréa y poder engañar a las autoridades, lo que no produjo los resultados deseados, pues la señora C.N. decidió confesar el origen del infante y proceder a su entrega.

The events date back to August 2007 in the city of Funza, Cundinamarca department. On that date, Ms. O.L., lawyer, received the amount of $ 7,000,000 pesos (approx. 3.500USD) from Mrs. C.N.This amount was paid by Ms. C.N. in concept of fees covering O.L.’s mediation services in the alleged adoption of a newborn child.

The defendants were the doctor and nurse, respectively, who assisted the birthmother of the child during birth. The defendants completed all the necessary procedures in order to issue the child’s birth certificate, which falsely listed Ms. C.N. as the child’s biological mother. As a result, the pertinent -false- entry was made in the civil registry using the birth certificate. 

The child’s origin and the reason why he was in the defendants’ custody were not investigated nor were they proved during the legal proceedings.

In September that year, the Colombian Family Welfare Institute (ICBF) received a report warning about the irregular presence of the child in Ms. C.N.’s custody. Upon that information, the Institute requested an investigation into the origin of the concerned child.

The said request forced Ms. C.N. to turn to the intermediary and the defendants, who decided to perform surgery on C.N. to simulate a false caesarea and deceive the authorities. However, this did not yield the desired results, for Ms. C.N. decided to confess the real source of the child, and proceeded to relinquish the child to the authorities.

Commentaire / Faits marquants

De los elementos contenidos en el presente caso, resultan significativos los relacionados con los intentos argumentativos de la defensa para vencer la adecuación de las conductas realizadas por la Fiscalía, y los razonamientos de la Corte Suprema de Justicia para descartarlos.

El primero de ellos hace referencia al intento de la defensa de desvirtuar la imputación del delito de trata de personas, sugiriendo que el tipo penal idóneo sería en este caso el de adopción irregular descrita en el artículo 232 del Código Penal colombiano, pero sin aportar mayores esfuerzos por soportar esa afirmación. Así, la Corte Suprema de Justicia precisó que en el delito de adopción irregular el sujeto activo es cualificado y requiere de la capacidad de poder adelantar los trámites de adopción o que se encuentra adelantando sin la debida licencia de programas de adopción. 

En este caso, por el contrario, los acusados se limitaron a entregar – vender un infante a una persona a quien le hicieron creer que se trataba de un trámite de adopción, a cambio de un precio.

Por otro lado, intenta la defensa desvirtuar la existencia del delito de trata de personas toda vez que se trataba de un fin “altruista” por parte de los acusados de conseguir una madre para el infante, y no existía por lo tanto ninguna finalidad de explotación por parte de éstos.

La Corte Suprema de Justicia encuentra que la finalidad de explotación quedó demostrada al entregar un infante en calidad de mercancía a cambio de un precio, acompañado de una serie de documentos falsos y de engaños, abusando del querer de una mujer infértil por ser madre, y con una división clara de tareas y responsabilidades en la comisión del acto criminal.

It is noteworthy, in this case, that the defendants’ counsel attempted to rebut the charges for human trafficking, by suggesting that the adequate criminal charge in this case would be “unlwaful adoption” under art. 232 of the Colombian Penal Code. However, the defense did not provide any further evidence or arguments to support that claim. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Justice clarified that in the unlawful adoption offense the active subject is qualified and requires the ability to expedite the adoption process.

In this sense, the defendants’ merely delivered –sold– a child for financial gain, to a person who was deceived into believing she was completing a legitimate adoption process.

On the other hand, the defense attempted to undermine the acussation of human trafficking, claiming that the defendant’s purposes were “altruistic”, as they simply intended to find a mother for the child, and therefore their actions did not have an exploitative purpose.

The Supreme Court of Justice found that the purpose of exploitation had been proven, as they delivered a child as if it were merchandise, in exchange for a sum of money. The defendants also provided a series of false documents, and sold the child through deception and abuse of a sterile woman’s desire to be a mother. The defendants acted with a clear division of labor and responsibilities in the commission of the criminal act.

Date de la peine:
2013-10-16
Auteur:
UNODC Colombia

Mots-clefs

Trafficking in Persons Protocol:
Article 3, Protocole contre la traite des personnes
Artículo 5, Protocole contre la traite des personnes
Actes:
Transport
Transfert
Hébergement
Accueil
Moyens:
Fraude
Tromperie
Fins d’exploitation:
Esclavage ou les pratiques analogues à l’esclavage
Autre
Formes de la Traite:
National
Secteur dans lequel l'exploitation a lieu:
Autres secteurs

Questions transversales

Responsabilité

Responsabilité pour

• Infraction consommée
• Infraction consommée

Responsabilité fondée sur

• Intention criminelle
• Intention criminelle

Responsabilité impliquant

• Auteur principal (d’une infraction)
• Auteur principal (d’une infraction)

Considérations liées à l'égalité des genres

Détails

• Questions relatives à la problématique femmes-hommes
• Auteur principal féminin

Informations sur la procédure

Système juridique:
Droit civil
Décision judiciaire la plus récente:
Cour suprême
Type d'Action Juridique:
Criminel / pénal
Les accusés ont été jugés:
ensemble (procès unique)
 

1ª Instancia: 

Corte/Tribunal: Juzgado Penal del Circuito
Local: Funza - Cundinamarca
Fecha de la decisión: 30/11/2011 

2a Instancia:

Corte/Tribunal: Tribunal Superior de Distrito Judicial
Local: Cundinamarca
Fecha de la decisión: 18/4/2012
Referencia: Proceso Nº 39257

1st Instance: 

Court: Circuit Criminal Court
Location: Funza-Cundinamarca
Date of decision: 30-11-2011 

2nd Instance:

Court: Superior Court of the Judicial District
Location: Cundinamarca          
Date of decision: 18/04/2012
Reference: Process Nº 39257

 
 

Victime / Demandeurs de la première instance

Victime:
Anonymous child
Sexe:
Enfant
Né/naissance:
2007

The victim was a newborn when sold for adoption.

Défendeurs / Répondants de la première instance

Nombre d'autres accusés:
2
Prévenu:
Carlos Enrique Castañeda
Sexe:
Homme
Nationalité:
Colombien

The defendant was a doctor.

Raisonnement juridique:

La Fiscalía, al momento de realizar la calificación jurídica conforme a los elementos fácticos, decide imputar el delito de falsedad en documento privado en lo relacionado con el certificado de nacido vivo del menor. En este aspecto el juez decide condenar por este delito, pero por el hecho de haber falsificado los acusados la historia clínica de la supuesta madre, y haber practicado una cesárea fraudulenta o falsa, a fin de poder justificar el nacimiento del menor y simular un vínculo biológico, en realidad inexistente, con la supuesta madre.

De igual forma, en cuanto al delito obtención de documento público falso, la Fiscalía había imputado al acusado a razón del registro civil de nacimiento, lo que constituía, en opinión del juez, el mismo delito pero atribuído en razón de la  expedición de un certificado de nacimiento falso, que conllevó a la realización de una inscripción falsa en el registro civil.

The prosecution decided to charge the defendant with the offense of falsifying a private document, with regards to the birth cerficicate issued under the minor’s name. The judge, however, decided to convict the defendants for this crime, but for the fact of having falsified the alleged mother’s medical history and having performed a false or fraudulent caesarea. The defendants did this in an attempt to justify the presence of the child and simulate a biological link -which did not exist in reality- with the fictitious mother.

Similarly, with regard to the offense of obtaining a public document, the Prosecution had charged the defendant with regards to the civil registry of the child’s birth, which constituted, in the judge’s opinion, the same crime but  attributed to the defendants on account of the false birth cirtificate issued by the defendants, which allowed others to make a false record in the civil registry.

Prévenu:
Betzabé Benavides de Rodríguez
Sexe:
Femme
Nationalité:
Colombien

The defendant was a nurse.

Raisonnement juridique:

Ibid. acusado 1. 

Ibid. defendant 1. 

Accusations / Demandes d’indemnité / Décisions

Prévenu:
Carlos Enrique Castañeda
Législation/Code:

Art. 188A and 188B, Chapter V “Crimes against personal autonomy”, Title III “Crimes against individual freedom and other guarantees”, Colombian Criminal Code: 

Art. 188A. Human Trafficking. Anyone who detains, transports, harbours or receives a person within the national territory or abroad for the purpose of exploitation shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of thirteen (13) to twenty-three (23) years and a fine of eight hundred (800) to one thousand, five hundred (1,500) times the current minimum statutory monthly wage.

For the purposes of this article, exploitation is understood to mean obtaining economic gain or any other benefit for oneself or for another person by exploiting the prostitution of another person or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices akin to slavery, servitude, exploitation of another person’s mendicancy, marital servitude, extraction of organs, sex tourism or other forms of exploitation.

Consent by the victim to any form of exploitation defined in this article shall not constitute grounds for exoneration from criminal responsibility.

Art. 188 B. Aggravating Circumstances.

[…]The sentence will be increased by half if the acts as described in art. 188 and 188A are committed against a child under twelve (12) years of age.

Détails de charges:
Aggravated Human Trafficking
Verdict:
Guilty
Législation/Code:

Art. 289, Chapter III “Of False Documents”, Title IX “Crimes Affecting Public Trust”. Colombian Penal Code: Falsehood in a Private Document. Whoever falsifies a private document which may be used as proof, will be liable, if he or she makes use of such document, to prison of one (1) to six (6) years.

Détails de charges:
Falsifying a Private Document
Verdict:
Guilty
Législation/Code:

Art. 288, Chapter III “Of False Documents”, Title IX “Crimes Affecting Public Trust”, Colombian Penal Code: Obtaining a false public document. Whoever, in order to obtain a public document to be used as proof or evidence, induces a public servant to error in the exercise of his or her functions, leading him or her to make a false record or to disregard the truth completely or partially, shall be liable to three (3) to six (6) years of imprisonment.

Détails de charges:
Obtaining a False Public Document
Verdict:
Guilty
Législation/Code:

Art. 454B, Chapter IX “Crimes against methods of proof and other offenses”, Title XVI “Crimes against the effective and fair administration of justice”: Concealment, alteration or destruction of evidence. Whoever, conceals, alters, or destroys any physical evidence as established by the Criminal Procedure Code, with the intent to impair its use as an element of proof during the investigation or as evidence at trial, shall be liable to four (4) to twelve (12) years of imprisonment, and a fine of two hundred (200) to five thousand (5.000) monthly legal minimum wages.

Détails de charges:
Concealment, Alteration or Destruction of Evidence
Peine de prison:
27 ans 2 Mois
Amende / Paiement à l’État:
Oui  (More than 500,000 USD)
Décision rendue en appel:
In Part

El Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial de Cundinamarca decidió reformar parcialmente la sentencia de primera instancia en el sentido de absolver a los acusados por atipicidad frente al cargo relacionado con el delito de ocultamiento, alteración o destrucción de elemento material probatorio.

Por lo anterior, el Tribunal redujo la pena a 306 meses de prisión, y la multa de 1.500 salarios mínimos legales a 1.426,6.

The Superior Court of the Cundinamarca District decided to reverse the first instance sentence in part. The Court resolved to acquit the defendants of the charge of concealing, altering or destroying evidence, as it considered that the actions carried out by the defendants did not fulfill the required elements for the commission of the crime.

Consequently, the Court reduced the defendant’s sentence to 306 months of imprisonment and the fine of 1.500 minimum legal wages, to 1.426,6 monthly minimum legal wages.  

Prévenu:
Betzabé Benavides de Rodríguez
Législation/Code:

Art. 188A and 188B, Chapter V “Crimes against personal autonomy”, Title III “Crimes against individual freedom and other guarantees”, Colombian Criminal Code: 

Art. 188A. Human Trafficking. Anyone who detains, transports, harbours or receives a person within the national territory or abroad for the purpose of exploitation shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of thirteen (13) to twenty-three (23) years and a fine of eight hundred (800) to one thousand, five hundred (1,500) times the current minimum statutory monthly wage.

For the purposes of this article, exploitation is understood to mean obtaining economic gain or any other benefit for oneself or for another person by exploiting the prostitution of another person or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices akin to slavery, servitude, exploitation of another person’s mendicancy, marital servitude, extraction of organs, sex tourism or other forms of exploitation.

Consent by the victim to any form of exploitation defined in this article shall not constitute grounds for exoneration from criminal responsibility.

Art. 188 B. Aggravating Circumstances.

[…]The sentence will be increased by half if the acts as described in art. 188 and 188A are committed against a child under twelve (12) years of age.

Détails de charges:
Aggravated Human Trafficking
Verdict:
Guilty
Législation/Code:

Art. 289, Chapter III “Of False Documents”, Title IX “Crimes Affecting Public Trust”, Colombian Penal Code: Falsehood in a Private Document. Whoever falsifies a private document which may be used as proof, will be liable, if he or she makes use of such document, to prison of one (1) to six (6) years.

Détails de charges:
Falsifying a Private Document
Verdict:
Guilty
Législation/Code:

Art. 288, Chapter III “Of False Documents”, Title IX “Crimes Affecting Public Trust”, Colombian Penal Code: Obtaining a false public document. Whoever, in order to obtain a public document to be used as proof or evidence, induces a public servant to error in the exercise of his or her functions, leading him or her to make a false record or to disregard the truth completely or partially, shall be liable to three (3) to six (6) years of imprisonment.

Détails de charges:
Obtaining a False Private Document
Verdict:
Guilty
Législation/Code:

Art. 454B, Chapter IX “Crimes against methods of proof and other offenses”, Title XVI “Crimes against the effective and fair administration of justice”: Concealment, alteration or destruction of evidence. Whoever, conceals, alters, or destroys any physical evidence as established by the Criminal Procedure Code, with the intent to impair its use as an element of proof during the investigation or as evidence at trial, shall be liable to four (4) to twelve (12) years of imprisonment, and a fine of two hundred (200) to five thousand (5.000) monthly legal minimum wages.

Détails de charges:
Concealment, Alteration or Destruction of Evidence
Verdict:
Guilty
Peine de prison:
26 ans 5 Mois
Amende / Paiement à l’État:
Oui  (More than 500,000 USD)
Décision rendue en appel:
In Part

El Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial de Cundinamarca decidió reformar parcialmente la sentencia de primera instancia en el sentido de absolver a los acusados por atipicidad frente al cargo relacionado con el delito de ocultamiento, alteración o destrucción de elemento material probatorio.

Por lo anterior, redujo la pena a 297 meses de prisión, así como reducir la multa de 1.500 salarios mínimos legales a 1.426,6.

The Superior Court of the Cundinamarca District decided to reverse the first instance sentence in part. The Court resolved to acquit the defendants of the charge of concealing, altering or destroying evidence, as it considered that the actions carried out by the defendants did not fulfill the required elements for the commission of the crime.

Consequently, the Court reduced the defendant’s sentence to 297 months of imprisonment and the fine of 1.500 minimum legal wages, to 1.426,6 monthly minimum legal wages.  

Tribunal

Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Appeals Chamber [Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala de Casación Penal]

Sources / citations

Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala de Casación Penal. Sentencia del 16 de octubre de 2013, radicado N° 39257.

Pièces jointes/annexes