132. In this case, the prosecutor and the judge in charge of the investigation established the existence of indications that M had been surrendered by her mother in exchange for money. The prosecutor indicated that “there had presumably been a scheme to sell the baby,” described the facts to be investigated and indicated that, behind the child’s mother, “there are other individuals with more influence, with more economic power, individuals who perhaps are organized to entrap young girls who are pregnant, single and from a disadvantaged background, and put them in contact with couples with the financial means, who pay to appropriate the children of the said girls.”100 133. Moreover, the investigating judge stated that he:101 [A]greed with the assertions of the prosecutor that, behind all the proceedings, there were a series of interests, fundamentally of a financial nature, among which, the most powerful make arrangements to entrap young, single pregnant women (in other words, the weakest and neediest) so that, in exchange money (which is never as much as those who profit from this intermediation receive), they surrender their child to couples with affective needs willing to adopt the newborns and to pay for this. The situation described in the case file falls within this reality, which is heartbreaking for those who still believe we have some compassion in the face of what we can only be classified as human exploitation, in which legal and health professionals are also involved[.] 134. Despite this, the criminal investigation was archived on two occasions without determining whether, a “sale” had really taken place (supra paras. 28 to 30), given that, in the opinion of the investigating judge and the Criminal Chamber involved, the facts relating to the alleged “sale” of the child did not conform to any criminal offense. In his second decision to file the case, the investigating judge indicated, among other considerations,102 that: Trafficking in babies has not been criminalized in our Criminal Code and can only be punished as an attack on the civil status or identity of the person (the latter since the enactment of Law [No.] 24.410), provided that the buyers register them in the Civil Registry as “their own children,” changing one identity for another (equivalent to eliminating). The fact that has not been proved, although always presumed, of money changing hands for the surrender of newborns is not a crime under the Criminal Code; irrespective of the moral or ethical harm that could be caused by this kind of action, which is fairly common at present, it does not represent criminal conduct, to the extent that the surrender of the newborn is carried out with all the legal formalities, as occurred in the instant case. [I]t is true, and I have indicated this in the judgment that was revoked […] that, shielded on the one hand by the financial needs (of the mother who is usually single) and on the other by the affective needs (of those who wish to adopt the child by any means, including paying for it), are the unlawful interests of individuals who are [well] known in small communities such as these and who, aware of the difficulties involved, take advantage of the situation, in order to profit from it, to contact both parties; while taking the largest share, convinced perhaps that they have done a good deed for the parties and, consequently, have a clear conscience. But that was a far cry from affirming that such conduct is criminal. [T]he fact denounced does not conform to any crime, a conclusion that definitively and irrevocably closes the case, by archiving it. It is concluded that, beyond the reservations of another nature that I have indicated above, there is no criminal conduct to investigate[.] 100 Prosecutor’s request for a preliminary investigation of August 2, 2000 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, attachment 7, folios 55 and 57). 101 Ruling of the investigating judge of August 4, 2000 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, attachment 8, folios 63 to 65). 102 Ruling of the investigating judge of January 31, 2001 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, attachment 11, folios 89, 92 and 96). 38