In April , co-defendants S. P and S. Throughout , the three co-defendants recruited, transported, harboured and transferred several young women -including victims E. M,- to Italy for the purpose of sexual exploitation. In September , defendant S. Once in Italy, however, he did not find her the promised job, but rather told her that she should engage in prostitution. During this time, she paid the proceeds from her begging to defendant S.
While these facts were established during the investigation, and through U. In October, , defendant S. After a month in Italy, S. She prostituted herself for 45 days and she gave half of the proceeds to S. Similarly to U. She claimed that upon arriving in Bucharest she was ill cardiac problems and other health issues and that this is why she testified that she had been compelled by defendant S. In the summer of , S. Nevertheless, co-defendants S. Once she arrived in Italy, defendant S.
In order to pay back the defendant, the victim prostituted herself for approximately one month in , after which she was sold to an Albanian panderer. With respect to co-defendants S.
E and S. With respect to co-defendant S. The Tribunal acquitted all 3 defendants of the offence of conspiracy to commit crimes under article of the Penal Code. The Court held that the co-defendants should only serve the most severe sentence. Thus, S. P would serve 6 years imprisonment with 3 years deprivation of certain rights, while S.
Victims E. N were not civil parties to the criminal trial. Furthermore, the Tribunal denied victim U. Defendant S. Thus, while pandering requires co-operation on the part of the person who is engaging in prostitution, human trafficking entails deception or some form of coercion exerted over the victim.
