The defendant and two other persons (a woman and a man) recruited and transported two women (in august 2005) to Turkey for purposes of commercial sexual exploitation. One of the victims was forced to practice prostitution against her will, being threatened with application of physical force that was not dangerous to her life.
1st Instance:
court - Judecatoria Botanica; date – 4 July 2007; reasoning - the defendant committed human trafficking by recruiting and transporting two women in Turkey for purposes of commercial sexual exploitation; decision - found guilty of committing a felony under Art. 165(2)(b) and (d) of the Penal Code and sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment.
2nd Instance:
court – Curtea de Apel Chisinau; date- 4 December 2007; reasoning – n/a; decision - lowered the sentence of the first instance from 10 years to 6.8 years because of the mitigating circumstances.
3rd instance:
Curtea Suprema de Justitie denied the appeal.
Whether the defendant committed human trafficking;
Penal Code, Art. 165 (2)(b) and (d) (Human Trafficking);
The defendant committed human trafficking by recruiting and then transporting the victims to Turkey for commercial sexual exploitation.
Moldovan Penal Code, Art. 165 (2)(b) and (d)
2nd instance:
Curtea de Apel Chisinau – appellate court (reviews the facts and merits of the case), the sentences was lowered by retaining certain mitigating circumstances.
3rd instance:
Curtea Suprema de Justitie – court of last resort (examines procedural and legal errors), error of law, appeal denied because there were no grounds for appeal.
Supreme Court of Justice
The above description is based on the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice that does not disclose many facts. The decision is not necessarily structured as a United States court decision. For example is it difficult to find the rezoning and the holding. The decision is very brief and does not provide detailed analysis of the applicable law provisions and the facts.