57 offence of trafficking for sexual purposes as a particularly heinous crime, punishable by the most severe sentence of imprisonment which a court can impose. [102] Again, the trial court’s approach to sentencing the appellant and the sentences which it imposed cannot be faulted. It correctly pointed out the failure by the state to reflect the minimum sentence of life imprisonment for trafficking for sexual purposes in the charge sheet. It thus correctly found that in the interests of justice the court’s ordinary penal jurisdiction would have to prevail. [103] The trial court carefully weighed the well-known triad of the nature of the offences, the appellant’s personal circumstances, and the interests of society. It paid due regard to the probation officer and victim impact reports. Their contents form part of the record and will thus not be repeated herein. The trial court accepted that the appellant’s moral blameworthiness was mitigated by the belief which he held concerning traditional practices, and accepted that in his own mind the appellant had not foreseen the catastrophic consequences to the complainant when he set in motion the course of events. We wish to emphasise however that in our view, any diminishing of the appellant’s moral blameworthiness must be clearly distinguished from the notion or perception that any aberrant form of custom or traditional practice can of itself constitute a substantial and compelling circumstance. This could never have been contemplated by the legislature, as it would fall foul of our Constitution, and