WILLEMSTAD - The Valencia case will be appealed tomorrow. The case revolves around alleged human trafficking and human smuggling at the Admissions Organization. Former Head of Admissions Organization Esther Cheri was acquitted of most of the offenses at first instance and eventually sentenced to community service and expulsion from her post for two years.

She has appealed the verdict and will return to court on 9 June to confront the three judges of the Court.

In March 2018, Cheri was sentenced to 100 hours of community service less two hours a day for the period she was in custody. She was also relieved from her position for two years. The prosecution had demanded three years ban from the office, but the judge found that the time when Cheri was suspended and the cut on her income also counts.

The judge then motivated the sentence by stating that Cheri is punishable for a number of offenses, but a large part of the charges against her are acquitted and that she has not previously come into contact with the police and judicial authorities.

"Moreover, it has become plausible that the conviction will have a major impact on the suspect's personal life and career prospects," it was still argued. The accusation was described in the verdict as follows:

“Cheri is guilty of abuse of function, smuggling of human beings, the provision of incorrect data and the failure to provide data in time and the act of committing forgery. These are particularly serious facts that she committed in the capacity of director of the Admissions Organization (TO). That is very bad. The TO works with complex matter under difficult conditions. The suspect was appointed by the minister to the position because of her extensive knowledge and experience in immigration law. As a figurehead of the organization, she should therefore have acted with great restraint and integrity, especially when it came to applications from people who had a personal or business relationship. She has used her powers and influence within the organization to provide a friend service or to gain (business) advantage for herself.”

By denying everything, Cheri also denies the damage that has been done to the image and the integrity of the TO, according to the court. Precisely because of the presence of private and business interests, she should have kept away from interference in applications and procedures.