Human Trafficking Around the World (55 page)

ICE agents, in collaboration with the local New York City Police Department, raided two apartments in Queens, where they found five trafficking victims along with Gerardo Flores Carreto, Josué Flores Carreto, Eliú Carreto Fernández, and Daniel Pérez Alonso (U.S. Department of Justice, 2005). In the raid, officials were able to locate and rescue the daughter of the woman who had contacted the U.S. embassy and four other trafficking victims (U.S. Department of Justice, 2005; ICE, 2007). Additionally, all but one of the children of the victims have been rescued by the Mexican government and reunited with their mothers in the United States (U.S. Department of Justice, 2007b).

Carreto Valencia was extradited from Mexico to the United States in January 2007. Although she initially denied wrongdoing, she later pleaded guilty (in 2008) and admitted that while in Mexico she received wire transfers from New York and that she was acutely aware that the funds were a byproduct of the commercial sexual exploitation of the women her sons trafficked from Mexico to the United States. Carreto Valencia pleaded guilty to one count of sex trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion (DeWeese, 2004; U.S. Department of Justice, 2007a, 2007b; ICE, 2008; Semple, 2008).

Not only did Carreto Valencia manage the syndicate; she was also the recipient of the majority of the network’s earnings (United States v. Carreto et al., 2009). The ring made hundreds of thousands of dollars in profits from forced commercial sexual exploitation of at least 50 women. The women were forced to have sex with up to 20 men per day and earned between $25 and $35 per act, which they were forced to give to the brothel owners and the Carretos. The Carretos and the brothel owners split the wages 50/50. With their cut, the Carretos wired money to family bank accounts in Mexico. The majority of money from their operations in both Mexico and New York went to Carreto Valencia (De-Weese, 2004; U.S. Department of Justice, 2007a, 2007b; ICE, 2008; Semple, 2008; United States v. Carreto et al., 2009).

At least three of the victims were forced to have abortions so that they could continue to be exploited for commercial sex (United States v. Carreto et al., 2009). One of the victims was raped and exposed to savage beatings by Pérez Alonso and also forced to watch the beatings of another victim by Josué Flores Carreto. Pérez Alonso controlled every aspect of the victim’s life—she was not permitted to leave the apartment without a chaperone except to go to and from the brothels. The victim’s purse was searched daily, and Pérez Alonso seized all monies found. Additionally, the victim faced physical brutality when she came home with less money than expected or when Pérez Alonso felt that she had disobeyed his orders. She became pregnant twice by Pérez Alonso and was forced to have abortions as a result (United States v. Carreto et al., 2009).

Another victim had a similar experience, and during the sentencing of the Flores Carreto brothers and Pérez Alonso, she responded when the issue of severity of sentencing was raised: “I just heard that it is not appropriate that they be sentenced to the number of years that they were sentenced because they did not kill anyone. But as far as I am concerned, it is a death. … I was five months pregnant when Josué arrived in New York. He caused me to abort and as far as I’m concerned … a human being [should not] be killed in that way (United States v. Carreto et al., 2009).

A source related to the case says the Carreto men would initially romance their young female victims. Some were just 17 years old, and at least one was only 14 years old at the time of trafficking. “Often the women were sitting in the plaza or attending weekend dances when they were approached by one of the men,” said the source, who wished to remain anonymous. “Initially, it was a normal courtship. However, once the men managed to get the women alone they would rape them.”
²
Once a victim was raped, physical isolation typically came next. Many of the women, said the source, were sent to the home of Carreto Valencia, where their movements were restricted:

The Carreto Valencia home was a compound of buildings, further aiding in isolation. Carreto Valencia waged a psychological campaign of demeaning the women—treating them as worthless. Restraint does not have to be physical but rather a collection of coercive forces brought to bear on the victims such as psychological degradation, humiliation, shame, isolation, poverty, naïveté, and conflicting feelings about the traffickers.

Understandably, the women felt they were in a hopeless situation. Furthering the manipulation of the women, a number of the victims’ children were kept in the physical custody of the Carreto family. “The consistent threat was that the children were going to be kept from their mothers if they did not cooperate,” the source said. When the women were brought to the United States, the children remained in the physical custody of Carreto Valencia and other Carreto family members. The victims feared that they would never see their children if they did not follow their traffickers’ orders. During the sentencing phase of the trial, one victim forced by Gerardo Flores Carreto to prostitute at the age of 14 asked the court to be reunited with her daughter: “The only thing I would like to ask you is that my daughter be returned to me because he took her away. She is eight years old and I don’t even know her and they still have her. … I have an idea that she is with her [Carreto Valencia’s] family but only because of the process that I am undergoing in Mexico for the custody” (United States v. Carreto et al., 2009).

TRAFFICKING WITHIN MEXICO

Men and boys from southern Mexico are subjected to forced labor in northern Mexico. Mexican forced-labor victims are also found in other parts the country. For example, on December 3, 2009, Mexico City police discovered 107 forced laborers making clothespins and shopping bags in a factory disguised as a drug rehabilitation center. Many of the workers had been kidnapped. Officials reported that the victims showed signs of physical and sexual abuse as well as malnourishment—they were given only rotten vegetables and chicken feet to eat. One of the workers escaped and informed the authorities. Twenty-three persons were arrested and charged with human trafficking in relation to this case (McAdams, 2010; U.S. Department of State, 2010). Child labor is used in Mexico in the production of green beans, chili peppers, coffee, cucumbers, eggplants, melons, onions, sugarcane, tobacco, tomatoes, and pornography (U.S. Department of Labor, 2009b).

Child-sex tourism is also growing in Mexico. Many child-sex tourists are from the United States, Canada, and western Europe. Unsurprisingly, the areas where child-sex tourism seems to be most prevalent are in tourist areas or northern border cities such as Acapulco, Cancún, Tijuana, and Ciudad Juárez. The Mexican government does not appear to prosecute sex tourists, but in 2007 it did assist with a U.S. child-sex tourism investigation involving a U.S. citizen in Ciudad Juárez. The defendant was convicted and sentenced in the United States (U.S. Department of State, 2008, 2010).

MEXICO AS A DESTINATION AND TRANSIT NATION

Persons from Central America, primarily from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are trafficked via Mexico into forced labor and the commercial sex trade in the United States and, to a lesser extent, Canada and western Europe. Persons from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, eastern Europe, and South America are trafficked to Mexico for commercial sexual exploitation and forced labor, and some of these are trafficked on to the United States (U.S. Department of State, 2009, 2010). Central Americans, particularly Guatemalans, are trafficked to Mexico for forced labor, often in the agricultural industry. Unaccompanied minors from Central America who travel through Mexico to meet family members in the United States are vulnerable to human trafficking, particularly near the Guatemalan border (U.S. Department of State, 2010). Those identified as trafficking victims in Mexico from 2005 through 2007 were from Argentina (8 people), Honduras (4 people), other Central American nations (4 people), other South American nations (2 people), East Asia (2 people), and Central Europe (1 person) (UNODC, 2009).

WHAT HAPPENS TO VICTIMS AFTER TRAFFICKING

One concern with the 2007 federal anti-trafficking law is that the regulations required victims to press charges against their traffickers in order to obtain assistance. Gretchen Kuhner, founder and co-director of the Institute for Women in Migration in Mexico and author of the American Bar Association’s
Human Trafficking Assessment Tool Report for Mexico
, said that a more humane and realistic prosecuting strategy would allow victims to receive assistance without having to first press charges against their traffickers. “Victims are often initially wary of law enforcement—they frequently feel like criminals themselves, are scared of deportation, and are fearful of pressing charges against their traffickers.”
³
Prosecutors need strong witnesses, and victims need time away from the trafficking experience to trust law enforcement and to feel strong enough to participate in a criminal proceeding. “The reality is that prosecutors can’t tell victims in good conscience that the trafficker[s] will likely be imprisoned if they agree to press charges, because chances are that the trafficker will not be imprisoned,” so victims are understandably fearful of retribution.
⁴
In 2010 the National Institute of Migration (INM) issued a directive requiring immigration officials to offer foreign victims an unlimited period of reflection to determine whether they want to participate in the prosecution of their trafficker. Victims can also request to stay in the country without providing evidence against their traffickers. Currently this directive applies only to INM employees (U.S. Department of State, 2011).

Another problem with the 2007 law is that it did not contain a clause rendering victim consent irrelevant. Consequently, the burden of proof could shift to the victim if he or she was over the age of 18. It is unknown whether the issue of victim consent presented problems for prosecutors, as it was not raised in a federal prosecution. Kuhner believes the absence of a consent-is-irrelevant clause was due in part to a societal misperception that trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation is the same as prostitution, which is culturally tolerated in Mexico. Although prostitution is legal, pimping or running a brothel is not. Offenses related to prostitution are not typically prosecuted. When a case is pursued against a pimp, KuHner explained, the prostitute has to identify that person:

In the proceedings, the women have to identify their pimp. But that relationship is often complex—sometimes the pimp is her boyfriend or husband, and the women often end up dropping the charges. So, there is a frame of mind that a woman has to say that she was

consenting. This may be why the clause has not been included—there is a cultural assumption that a trafficking victim, at least in terms of commercial sexual exploitation, can consent.

Today at least seven Mexican states have statutes that make victim consent irrelevant if any of the means of trafficking are established (ABA, 2009; U.S. Department of State, 2010). In 2010 there was a draft law under consideration by the Mexican Congress that would address the issue of consent, increase victim protections, and add clarification in the area of government responsibilities. In 2011 the government did enact reforms that raised trafficking to the level of a serious crime, established enhanced victim identity protections, and allowed for preventative detention of suspected traffickers, but the reforms did not address the issue of consent (U.S. Department of State, 2011, 2012). The issue of consent was not properly addressed until the passage of the new anti-trafficking law in 2012, Article 40 of which states that consent by the victim, regardless of age, will not constitute grounds for excluding criminal responsibility (Government of Mexico, 2012a).

The government has increased its focus on shelter availability for trafficking victims. Historically, although the social welfare agency operates shelters for children who are victims of violence (including trafficking victims), there has been a lack of government-funded shelters specifically oriented to trafficking victims. In 2007 the Attorney General’s Office donated a residence, confiscated from a convicted drug trafficker, for use as a shelter geared to adolescent victims of human trafficking, specifically sexual exploitation. Camina A Casa was renovated, is fully operational, and is able to accommodate up to 25 victims. As of 2012, more than 100 girls have received long- or short-term care through the recovery program (USAID, 2009; U.S. Department of State, 2009; iEmpathize, 2012). In 2009 the Specialized Prosecutorial Unit for Violent Crimes against Women and Human Trafficking (FEVIMTRA) opened a high-security shelter in Mexico City specifically for female victims of sex trafficking and other violence including kidnapping, as well as to women whose family members have disappeared or been murdered. Victims are not allowed to leave the shelter unaccompanied, which the government states is because of safety concerns. The shelter is designed to provide legal, medical, and psychological services to victims. The nation’s social welfare agency runs general shelters for children under the age of 13 who are victims of violence; it is unknown how many children housed in these shelters are trafficking victims. The government also supports a national network of shelters and emergency attention centers for female victims of violence, though few of these shelters offer specialized care for trafficking victims. The government continues to fail to provide adequate shelter services for male victims (ABA, 2009; U.S. Department of State, 2010, 2012).

Some NGOs also run shelters, which provide not only safe lodging but also social assistance and in some cases legal representation to trafficking victims (ABA, 2009; U.S. Department of State, 2009). Although the government frequently refers trafficking victims to NGOs, there has been little inclusion of NGO representatives in the interagency anti-trafficking committee. Such involvement would aid in gathering trafficking statistics (ABA, 2009; U.S. Department of State, 2009). Along with NGOs, some international and religious groups also provide shelter and services to trafficking victims. However, services in some regions remain inadequate, and some shelter organizers are fearful of retribution and are therefore reluctant to aid trafficking victims (U.S. Department of State, 2012).