Facts

Parties involved: A. (appellant), Public Prosecutor's Office of the Republic and Canton of Neuchâtel, B.B. and C.B. (respondents).

Courts involved: Criminal Court of the Mountains and Val-de-Ruz, Criminal Court of the Cantonal Court of the Republic and Canton of Neuchâtel, Federal Supreme Court.

Key dates: Judgment of the Criminal Court of June 7, 2022, judgment of the Criminal Court of February 22, 2024, appeal to the Federal Supreme Court of April 7, 2025.

Main facts:

  • [A.], originally from Morocco, left her country for Switzerland in August 2011 and was hosted by C.B. and B.B. until 2017, during which time she performed household chores and took care of the couple's children without compensation.
  • The Criminal Court convicted C.B. and B.B. for offenses under art. 116 para. 1 TSOA. a FNIA, but dismissed the civil claims of A.
  • The Criminal Court rejected the appeals of [A.] and the Public Prosecutor's Office, but acquitted B.B. of complicity in offenses under art. 116 para. 1 TSOA. a FNIA.
  • [A.] filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, invoking a violation of art. 182 SCC and 4 ECHR.

Considerations

The appellant invokes a violation of art. 182 SCC and 4 ECHR. Art. 182 SCC punishes anyone who engages in the trafficking of a human being for the purpose of sexual exploitation, exploitation of their labor, or for the purpose of organ removal. Human trafficking is defined by the recruitment, transport, transfer, accommodation, or reception of persons by various means, including the exploitation of prostitution, forced labor, slavery, etc.

The cantonal court considered that the constituent elements of human trafficking were not established, notably due to the lack of proof of recruitment in Morocco and the absence of a situation of distress or vulnerability of the appellant. It also considered that the appellant had not been treated as a commodity and that she had retained the capacity to leave the situation.

Th…