The defendant with his accomplices recruited and transported a woman to Istanbul, Turkey by deceiving her, abusing the position of vulnerability of the victim, who has a poor financial situation, for purposes of sexual exploitation.
1st Instance:
court - Judecatoria Cahul; date – 25 May 2006; reasoning - the defendant committed human trafficking by recruiting and transporting a woman in Turkey for purposes of commercial sexual exploitation; decision - found guilty of committing a felony under Art. 165(2)(d) of the Penal Code and sentenced to 11 years of imprisonment.
2nd Instance:
court – Curtea de Apel Cahul; date - 23 January 2007; reasoning – the appeal is unfounded; decision - upheld the decision of the first instance.
3rd instance:
Curtea Suprema de Justitie denied the appeal.
Whether the defendant committed human trafficking;
Penal Code, Art. 165 (2)(d);
The defendant committed human trafficking by recruiting and transporting the victim to Turkey for commercial sexual exploitation.
Moldovan Penal Code, Art. 165 (2)(d)
2nd instance:
Curtea de Apel Cahul – appellate court (reviews the facts and merits of the case), the court of appeal denied the appeal stating that the decision of the court of fist instance became irrevocable and therefore cannot be appealed, the court of appeal upheld the decision of the first instance.
3rd instance:
Curtea Suprema de Justitie – court of last resort (examines procedural and legal errors), the Supreme Court denied the ordinary appeal because there were no grounds for appeal.
Supreme Court of Justice
The Supreme Court found that the ordinary appeal (Romanian: recurs ordinar) cannot be admitted. The Supreme Court stated that the grounds for this type of appeal are expressly provided by law in Art. 427 of the Penal Procedure Code and the defendant must indicate the legal provisions on which the appeal is based. In the present case, the defendant failed to indicate the legal basis of his appeal.