The Federal Supreme Court ruled that a resident woman, accused of trafficking and substance abuse, should be retried and referred her case to the Court of Appeal for further review after she was sentenced to life imprisonment and deportation.
In its judgment, the Court stated that there was no evidence of the trafficker's availability of trafficking, which confirmed that the seizures did not return to her, and that she had lived in the room where the drugs had been seized only three days before.
In the details, the Public Prosecution referred a resident woman to trial on charges of possession and abuse of mental stimuli, and restricted the incident to felony and misdemeanor, demanding that she be punished in accordance with the provisions of Federal Law No. 14 of 1995 on the Control of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and its amendments.
The Court of First Instance unanimously ruled that the defendant be sentenced to life imprisonment and fined 50,000 dirhams for possession of psychotropic substances, one year imprisonment and a fine of 10,000 dirhams for the charge of abuse and expulsion from the state after the penalty was imposed.
The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first degree, which was not accepted by the accused and appealed to him, and the Public Prosecution submitted a memorandum of opinion and requested the rejection of the appeal.
The defendant's defense said that "the referee erred in applying the law and contradicted the paperwork. He condemned his client for trafficking in narcotic drugs on the basis of her testimony at the stage of collecting evidence and the prosecution's investigations, while she did not recognize trafficking in narcotics. And that they had not seen the seizures before, and that the crime of trafficking was not available to them, since mere possession was not evidence of trafficking , And that the purpose of trafficking is not available simply by possession, Especially since the defendant was not arrested while she was selling or receiving the drug. "
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal, explaining that "every sentence of conviction must include a statement of the fact of the penalty, a statement verifying the elements of the crime and the circumstances in which it occurred, the evidence obtained from the court being proven by the accused, and the evidence from which the conviction was derived, And the judgment should be in a detailed statement so that the grounds for the sentence can be ascertained, not in general terms, and it is also intended that the purpose of the trafficking in narcotic substances, Appreciation, except N so conditional that sets out the facts and circumstances of sufficient significance in the availability of the reasons for easy prey that will lead to the rank of judging them. »
The court stated that the sentence did not specify, in its reasons, the evidence on which the defendant was convicted of possessing narcotic drugs for the purpose of trafficking. The defendant denied at all stages the possession of the object for trafficking and recognized that the seizures did not belong to her. He did not memorize the intention of trafficking in the accused.