It referred the case to the "appeal" for further consideration

Federal Supreme Council set aside a life sentence for someone accused of drug trafficking

The Federal Supreme Court overturned a sentence that had sentenced a person accused of drug trafficking, and decided to refer the case to the Court of Appeal for its consideration again, as it showed that the Appeals Court that heard the pleading was composed of four judges instead of three judges according to what is legally established, thus nullifying the trial procedures.

In the details, the Public Prosecution referred an accused to criminal trial on charges of possession of drugs with the intention of trafficking, demanding that he be punished in accordance with the articles of the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Control Law and the first schedule of the same law.

The court of first instance in presence decided, unanimously, to punish the accused with life imprisonment for the charge against him, to deport him from the state after the execution of the sentence, and to confiscate the seized items, and the fees imposed on him, and the appeals court confirmed them. In it, I concluded with a request to revoke the judgment due to the difference of the body that reserved the case for pleading from the body that pronounced the judgment, which stigmatizes the judgment of nullity related to public order.

For its part, the Federal Supreme Court upheld the Public Prosecution’s defense, confirming that it is decided in the court’s judiciary that the procedures for litigation and the issuance of judgments from the public order can be raised by any party at any stage in which the case is, even for the first time before the Supreme Court, and that it is legally decided The Court of Appeal is made up of three judges, and only the judges who have booked the case for judgment and heard the pleading may participate in the deliberation.

The court stated that the appealed ruling violated the law, because the body that heard the pleading was composed of four judges, which is a violation of the law that required the Court of Appeal to be composed of three judges, which invalidates the trial procedures, and this court is unable to know which of the judges The four wrote the draft judgment and deliberated on it, so that it could enforce its control over the extent to which the law was properly applied legally, and it is not indispensable for that mention of the minutes of the verdict's pronouncement session and the names of three judges. It is decided that the session minutes are the main reference on which to monitor the extent of the judgment’s compliance with the general rules established regarding the issuance of judgments, and that its violation will result in the nullity of the judgment related to public order, which necessitates revocation of the judgment and referral.

-

Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news