San Luis Potosi, Mexico (June 26, 2000 – November 13th, 2000):

	On June 26, 2000, an investigation was initiated against two Family members in San Luis, Potosi, Mexico, in response to a complaint filed by the vice-consul of the US consulate at Monterrey, and a consular official at San Luis de Potosi (Process no. 128/2000). This complaint was filed at the Prosecutor’s Office, on the grounds of having witnessed two Family members with some of their minor children distributing religious posters in the downtown plaza area of San Luis Potosi. This complaint was ratified before the Department for the Defense of the Minor and the Individual (DIF).
	The prosecutor’s office responded to this call to investigate, and proceeded to level sweeping charges of statutory rape and corruption of minors against some of the members of the community.  Although several men lived in the communal mission, the prosecution arbitrarily singled out the two fathers of the children to designate as guilty parties.  The children and adults were interviewed, the children vehemently denying having been victims of any kind of mistreatment or abuse. The Prosecution ignored their pleas, stating that the testimony of the children couldn’t be relied upon, as they would be likely to defend their fathers.
	The lawyer for the defense had a very limited period of time to prepare for this case, and as such focused only on the more serious charges of statutory rape and child abuse.  These charges were dismissed by the magistrate, while the lesser charge of corruption of minors by means of mendicity was upheld on a pre-trial basis, which in the Mexican judicial system meant the accused would be imprisoned pending trial.  The argument given was that the children were possibly being corrupted by their participation in activities of distributing religious literature and requesting donations in exchange.
	The prosecution appealed the lower court’s decision to throw out charges of statutory rape and child abuse, to no avail, as the First Appeal’s Court of San Luis Potosi confirmed the lower court’s decision on November 13th, 2000.
	The defense appealed the charges of the corruption of minors by exposing them to mendicity.  The appeal’s court found the two imprisoned Family members innocent of these charges by unanimous vote, fully exonerating them and placing them at liberty, after being imprisoned on a pre-trial basis for over four months.  
	In the ruling, the appeal’s court seriously questioned the grounds given for accusing the fathers of corruption of minors, which highlights issues of religious freedom rights and religious tolerance:

	“Now, literally, by mendicity it is understood that it “is the state and situation of a beggar”; and a beggar is “one who habitually begs”; for this, it is necessary that the beggar beg as a consequence of his condition of indigence; and by indigence is understood a person whose resources are not sufficient for livelihood. In this situation…it has not been manifested that the accused incited, procured or encouraged the minors to live as indigents--that is without sufficient livelihood, and that for this reason they had need of asking for money in the street.  
Above all, taking into account the statement of [the consular official], in her appearance before the Procurator for the Defense of the Minor, Women and the Family, where she stated that: 
“…[O]ne day at the Plaza de Armas, probably in the Month of March, a young girl of approximately 11 years of age approached her, speaking in English and gave her a leaflet with a Bible verse, asking her for five pesos in exchange.  Telling her that she isn’t accustomed to giving money to people, she invited her to speak with her… that they dedicate themselves to feeding the needy and she and her family are missionaries.  The child was well dressed, clean, uninhibited in her speech .  When I asked if she attended school, she said that no, they had classes in their home...”.
	Therefore it must be affirmed that the crime of Corruption of Minors in the Penal Code lies within the corresponding title of that which “opposes Public Morals”. Although it is true that every crime is at variance with the order of ethics from a sociological point of view, taking into consideration the contents of the chapter relative to “Corruption of Minors”, it must be affirmed that what is being protected is the scale of moral values of society, understood as regards socially accepted traditional institutions, which are respect of family, abstention of reprehensible sexual conduct.  That is to say, in the absence of what is known as “vices” and in general, in situations that form part of the social moral heritage whose contradiction is not in itself criminal, to maintain a different criterion would lead to sustaining that any inducement to an activity that differs from the socially accepted as “moral”, whatever it may be, if it is directed to a minor, constitutes corruption, and this is inadmissible.  Corruption of a minor would exist only when the activity being induced infringes the values that form part of the purely ethical heritage of the community, besides the values protected by law.”
Furthermore, the victim is not corrupted as long as by his own volition he does not behave in a criticizable manner and in this case there is no element of proof of such circumstances.  Since it was not proven either that the suspects intended to corrupt the minors, the first of the elements of the corpus delicti in question are not admitted… 
	In light of the above… the legal and admissible is to Revoke the Order of Imprisonment issued…  for the crime of Corruption of Minors, in the Penal Trial number 128/2000 being carried out in the Third Penal Court of this Capital City, ordering their immediate and total release...”  

EOM