The appellant claimed that the charge of sexual exploitation was defective and that the evidence of the complainant Rehema Athumani should not have been believed and acted upon (allegedly because of a “history of mental illness and confusion”).
The female defendant was charged with trafficking in person for the purpose of sexual exploitation. The defendant used an employment agency in Peru to offer Peruvian women waitress jobs at her residence in Chile. She would assist them in crossing the border and would pay travel costs. Upon arrival, the victims were kept at the defendant’s residence and were forced to provide sexual services to clients arranged by the defendant. The defendant also kept the victims’ passports so that they would be unable to leave until their debts were paid.
The Combating of Trafficking in Persons Act gives effect to the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. The Act criminalizes trafficking in persons and associated offenses and aims to protect and assist trafficking victims particularly women and children.
A 17-year-old girl engaged in sexual acts with an online acquaintance she had met only twice because he threatened to end the relationship if she refused. The Court ruled that threatening to end a relationship can constitute a threat of substantial harm and thus sexual coercion if the relationship has a high emotional value to the victim. Specifically, the Court noted that whether the termination of a relationship constitutes substantial harm depends on the individual perception of the victim, and not on the perception of a reasonable average person.
Article 129-A of the Peruvian Penal Code prohibits the use of violence, threats, coercion, fraud, deception, abuse of power, or the receipt of any benefits in order to capture, transport, keep or retain another person with the intent to exploit them. The crime is punishable by 8 to 15 years imprisonment. When the crime is committed against a child, it is punishable even if the perpetrator did not use any of the prohibited means listed.
Peruvian Penal Code Title IV: Crimes Against Liberty, Chapter X: Procurement, Articles 179 and Article 180 prohibit the promotion or facilitation of prostitution. The crime is punishable by 4 to 6 years imprisonment. Aggravating circumstances include situations where the victim is in a situation of abandonment or extreme economic necessity, or where the perpetrator relies on prostitution for their livelihood. Article 180 similarly prohibits the management of another person’s prostitution services, applying the same penalty.
After a police raid on a brothel, four pimps were arrested and twenty-four women and girls were taken into custody. The magistrate ordered a medical examination to, among other things, determine the women's ages. The magistrate then ordered that the women 18 and over be released, and a few days later ordered the minor girls to be released. The magistrate explained that the girls had expressed a desire to be released. The Court held that this act was in violation of the Juvenile Justice Act, that only a child welfare board could determine how the girls were to be released.
The victim was raped by a doctor on 14 November 2006 at Magunga Hospital in Korogwe District. The appeal asserted that the witness in the trail was not credible. The appellate Court concluded that it was unable to “find a ground for denting the credibility of the complainant” and “not having found any contradictions in the evidence of PW1, the victim of the sexual assault by her doctor, the appellant” .
