Training in bucharest romania

Witht the occasion of the appeal the defendant A.H. formulated his defence through a statement which he sent to the Court of Appeal via E-MAIL and at the request of the the Prosecutor he was heard by international Rogatory Commission achieved in Lebanon. The defendant S.A.I.N. was heard directly by the court of appeal. The following evidence was also requested and produced: the civil party H.C.N.D. was heard, the witnesses R.C., L.F., V.C.L., M.C.A., D.G.N., G.R., A.G. were heard.
The defendants requested through written conclusions as follows:

• 
  S.A.I.N. requested a change of the legal classification of facts from the offense provided by Art. 12 para. 1 and 2 of Law 678/2001, applying Art. 41 para. 2 of the Criminal Code into the criminal offense under Art. 210 pt. 1 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Art. 5 of the Criminal Code and under Art. 421 para 1 b) C.P.C. he requested the dismissal of the prosecutor’s office appeal.
  

Regarding the request to change the legal classification of the act, he showed that this claim is based on the fact that since the date of the alleged facts and until present it appeared a new law that is more favorable because on the one hand the new law no longer criminalizes the act commited by two people as an aggravating circumstance, on the other hand there has been excluded from the definition of "exploitation of a person" the assumption regarding the execution of a work or the performance of services in violation of laws on working conditions, salaries, health and safety. The clasification of the standard type of crime provided unde Art. 210 of the Criminal Code - without amount for aggravating circumstances on the commission fo the fact by two persons - affects the limits of punishment, which under the new legislation are lower. Under Art. 210 para 1 of the Criminal Code, the punishment is imprisonment from 3 to 10 years, less than the penalty provided in Art. 12 para 1 and 2 of Law 678/2001, which is from 5-15 years. As concerns the exclusion from the material element of the crime the assumption regarding the execution of a work or the performance of certain services in violation of the conditions of safety, health, employment and salaries. As provided for under Art. 182 of the New Criminal Code, exploitation of a person means the execution of a work or the performance of services forcibly. The provisions of Art. 182 of the New Criminal Code have no declarative character, being interpreted strictly. Essentially, he showed that non-compliance with the legislation on working conditions, salaries, health and safety no longer fall within the notion of exploitation of a person in the current legislation.

• 
  A.H. requested the dismissal of the appeal filed by the prosecution, since the evidence reprovided in the case during the appeal did not shift the evidence provided before the court of first instance (the tribunal).