This case began with a complaint made by the ex-husband of a victim, C. He showed to the police text messages on his cell phone, proving that the victim was locked up in a brothel in the city of Resistencia and was threatened with death if she managed to escape. During the trial, C. Soledad told the victim she would earn an income of around 4, to 5, pesos, and after 15 days of work the victim could go to visit her family. After her arrival, she was hosted by D.
It was explained that she would have to work there for at least two months, without leaving the premises to visit her family as previously promised, in order to pay off the debt. The victim asserted that she was obliged to work every single day, and was "fined" 1, pesos if she refused. All of the girls at the brothel had to pay for their food, which led to endless debts with the defendant.
Defendants G. In February , the police operation was conducted to arrest the defendants and to rescue the girls. All victims were rescued and the defendants O.
At that time, C. Therefore, the Court decided to allow their arrest and include them in the trial as participants in the crime. On 18 March , the Federal Court proceeded to arrest the defendant M. The representative of the Public Prosecutor stated " In the case of G. Not credited, in my opinion with sufficient certainty, that these two girls have to do with the crime investigated, in my opinion these girls are victims too It was established that the transfer of C.
It was also proven that C. The actions of M. The Court also concluded that the victim's consent was violated by abuse of a position of vulnerability.
