The Supreme Court has upheld a prior conviction for a group of Romanian citizens and another individual, who were sentenced by the High Court of Justice of Catalonia for offenses linked to human trafficking through begging. The case traces back to 2016 in Barcelona, where a 71-year-old Romanian man was brought to the city. He was compelled to beg so his captors could share whatever alms he received, while he was not provided with food or drink. Eventually, the captors sold the victim to another prisoner for 400 euros. This narrative forms the core of the appellate review now confirmed by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court confirmed the TSJC’s decision, reducing the sentences originally handed down by the Barcelona Court by one year. The court sentenced one defendant to 10 years in prison for human trafficking and six years for wounding, with the additional consequence of removing the left leg due to gangrene caused by a lack of necessary medical intervention. A third co-defendant had his sentence reduced from 10 to eight years for the first crime, while the trio were acquitted of another charge of wounding, which had alleged the loss of toes on one foot.
The judgment rejects the couple’s objections in full. It establishes that the marriage was proven, a point the third convicted person had openly challenged. The widow, who had no children and relied on neighborly support, traveled to Barcelona with the other defendants to beg and share the profits of the scheme. The troubling detail is that, in Spain, they subjected the victim to captivity, denying basic sustenance and drink entirely.
Even crutches
It is recalled that the perpetrators seized the man’s crutches and the documents used to move him from Romania to a wheelchair. The Second Chamber carefully reviews all the evidence presented by the courts of first instance. Eyewitnesses described forcing the man to beg from seven in the morning until ten in the evening, showing no compassion for his suffering. He was left to relieve himself in a bottle or in a nearby sewer, and he crawled to reach a safe place. Several neighbors testified that they had to feed him themselves; when he cried out in pain, medical services were called and he was transported to San Pablo Hospital, where doctors amputated his leg.
Given the weight of evidence, the court deemed the defendants’ lack of care and their control over the victim as a reasonable inference for the passivity observed in P.’s activities. Considering the narrator’s severely deteriorated health, the removal of the left leg, and the state in which he was found, the appellate court’s assessment was that the initial judgment could be sustained. The Supreme Court noted that the defendant had relied on a fragmented interpretation of parts of the record, trying to fit the pieces as he saw fit in an attempt to secure acquittal.
In this regard, the judges clarified that the defense’s argument, claiming that wounding is incompatible with human trafficking, did not hold up under scrutiny. They recalled the classic cautionary example of a teacher describing beggars who maim children in the name of charity, and they asserted that victims used for such purposes can sometimes be more useful alive than dead. The court stated that if a mutilated person can more easily attract alms, it should not be considered a crime to transport someone from Romania under such conditions, nor to inflict willful injury. The argument does not exclude the crime or the underlying charge of human trafficking; rather, it underscores the opposite outcome.