The accused I. Š. will remain in custody following the Court of Appeals’ decision regarding allegations of forcing her four-year-old daughter to beg.

The child’s stepfather, S. R, is also set to stay behind bars, as the ruling indicates, due to suspicions of his involvement in a criminal offense related to human trafficking.

The court rejected the appeal from their legal counsel, who claimed that a significant violation of criminal procedure occurred, requesting either the revocation of the contested decision or its modification to lift the detention.

“Upon assessing the evidence from the first-instance court’s file to the level of reasonable suspicion, this court also finds that the defendants RS and I. Š. are reasonably suspected of committing the offenses outlined in the indictment from the Higher State Prosecutor’s Office,” the Court of Appeals states.

The court further notes that, as reasonably suspected, on January 24, 2025, the defendants exploited a relationship of dependency for the purpose of begging, by recruiting the affected girl born on February 8, 2021.:

“By taking advantage of her dependent status as a child related to them, where the injured party is the daughter of I. Š., the defendants S. and R., who are her stepfathers and live with her in a family unit, allegedly conspired to have the injured party beg for money. This includes bringing her to the entryway of catering establishments in the city square to receive money from patrons while the defendant SR is believed to have monitored her movements and actions at a suitable distance, ensuring she returned any collected funds to the defendant I. Š. Afterward, it is suspected they all proceeded to the ‘I’ market to trade the money and keep the remainder for themselves,” the court’s decision reflects.

“The defendants are accused of exploiting the child’s dependency by bringing her to the entrance of a restaurant in the city square, where guests provided her with money,” the court decision reiterates.

Upon reviewing the first-instance decision, the court concluded that there were no significant procedural violations impacting the contested decision…

“This court believes that the first-instance court provided adequate, clear, and valid justifications concerning the grounds for detention under Article 175, paragraph 1, item 1 of the CPC, which was used to extend the detention of defendants SR and I. Š. and this opinion is accepted. Additionally, this court assessed the grounds for the appeals, reviewing if any material violations of the criminal procedure were incurred under Article 386, paragraph 2 of the CPC, and determined that the contested decision was unaffected by such violations, as the first-instance court correctly applied all relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure for lawful and proper decision-making in this case.

News