2^nd instance:

The defendants appealed postulating that their acts performed by them characterize mere preparatory acts, which would make the conducts atypical.

The Court denied the criminal appeal. It was deliberated that the materiality and authorship of the criminal offenses had been proven by not only by the report of the arrestment, but also by the testimonies of the victims and by the interrogatory of the defendant Daniela Civitate. The documents and manuscripts found in the possession of the defendant João Alberto show that he had a connexion with the girls who would work as prostitutes in Spain.

The defendants Jorge, Claribel and Maria Ivoneide communicate by phone with the victims several times before their arrestment, which confirm that they were involved with the preparations for the trip, revealing their association to commit the delicto of international trafficking in person for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

The Court considered that the purpose for profit was proved by the testimony of the victim K.C.S., who said that the defendant Jorge mentioned to her that the gains from the prostitution would be shared in the ratio of 50%. The statements of the defendant Daniela Gama and of the witness Dejanira Lopes Leite corroborate with what had been said by the victim K.C.S.

The Court also noted that the argument of the defendants that their acts were only preparatory could not prosper. The Court considered that the execution of the crime began when the defendants Claribel and Maria Ivoneide took the victims to the place where they would take the bus to the International Airport of Guarulhos, São Paulo. Thus, once the execution of the criminal conduct initiated, the consummation of the crime did not happen only because the execution was interrupted by circumstances beyond the control of the agents, which was the arrestment by the Police.

The association to commit the crime of international trafficking in person for the purpose of sexual exploitation involved not only the defendants Jorge Alberto, Claribel Cardoso and Maria Ivoneide, but also the Spanish Margarita Victória, who, although not denounced, had her participation mentioned at the initial accusatory and at the sentence. Present more than three people for the purpose of committing the crime it is characterized the organized criminal group.

3^rd instance:

The defendant Maria Ivoneide dos Santos filled a declaration motion, in the terms of the articles 619 and 620 of the Penal Procedure Code, claiming that the decision of the Second Instance was contradictory and silent. The contradiction concerns the fact that the victims were accompanied only by Jorge; that the content of the telephone calls was not investigate and that no tickets were found in the possession of the defendants. With regards to the crime of organized criminal group, the defendant argues that once the stability or permanency is essential, it would be necessary that Margareth had been denounced. Also claims that since it is not admitted the crime of gang when one of the members is acquitted, with much more reason it shouldn´t be admitted the crime when one of the members was not even denounced.

The Court rejected the declaration motion, once it is inadmissible, through this type of motion, the review of the appellate merits. The defendant clearly intended to rediscuss questions already decided in the process, which it is not in accordance to the terms of the articles 619 and 620 of the Penal Procedure Code.

The Court noted that it is irrelevant the fact that only the defendant Jorge was found together with the victims inside the bus of the company Viação San Raphael, once the execution of the crime had already initiated when the defendants Claribel and Maria Ivoneide took the victims to the place where they would catch the bus. The Court also considered that the evidence gathered clearly characterize the attempt of international trafficking in person for the purpose of sexual exploitation, being irrelevant the fact that no tickets were found with the defendants.

The Court pointed out that with regard to the defendant Maria Ivoneide, she made ​​13 calls to Jorge, 32 for Claribel, and received several phone calls from Jorge. These facts reveal a strong link between them being needless the knowledge of the content of each phone call, since there were present others evidences, such as documents and cash found with the defendant Jorge when he was arrested, as well as the testimonies of the victims and witnesses, proving that the defendant Maria Ivoneide were part of the organized criminal group for the purpose of international trafficking.

The Court considered that at the decision of the criminal appeal it was clear that it is possible to condemn the defendants for the organized criminal group, even though one of the members was not denounced. It remained also clear that the fact that one of the defendants have been acquitted would not have the power to lead the acquittal of others, since it had been proven the existence of four members, even if one has not been denounced. Therefore, the Court upheld the decision to sentence the defendants under the article 288 of the Penal Code for organized criminal group, once it was proven the existence of another member of the societas sceleris, Margarita Victória, who could not be denounced.