The Federal Supreme Court rejected the appeal of an accused against an appeal judgment that sentenced him to death after being convicted of deliberately killing a person using a knife following a quarrel between them, confirming the criminal intent of the accused's right to commit the crime.
The Public Prosecution had referred the accused to court for murdering a person, deliberately and aggressively, by stabbing him with a knife, demanding that he be punished.
The Court of First Instance unanimously convicted and punished the accused for murder, by means of the available means, for the deliberate killing of the victim, provided that the sentence is carried out in the presence of the legal guardian or his legal representative, and upheld by the Court of Appeal.
The verdict was not accepted by the accused, and he was appealed. His defense stated that «the verdict violated the law and erred in its application and contrary to Islamic law, as he pushed before the trial court of non-jurisdiction and refer the case to the juvenile court, for trial, because it was a juvenile at the time of the crime, which is flawed and requires revocation».
The Federal Supreme Court rejected this appeal, pointing out that «the crimes of juvenile delinquents and homeless subject to the provisions of Islamic law, as do crimes of border and retribution and parental. The principle of responsibility in this law is reason and puberty, which does not make the different stages of age after puberty in the estimation of the punishment prescribed for the offense, and that there is no room for subjection to the measures provided for in the law of juvenile delinquents, but must apply the provisions of Islamic law in the crimes of border and retribution and friendly And that the responsibility legitimately is puberty and reason, if it is established puberty emirate or age prove the full capacity of man, then he will be fully responsible as long as he has reached reasonable ».
She pointed out that the decision of the law, according to the first article of Law No. 3 of 1996 on the jurisdiction of the Shari'a courts, is that «the Shari'a courts are exclusively competent to consider the following crimes, and everything related to or branch out or be submitted to them, including border crimes and retribution and parental ». The second article of the same law stipulates that "all the crimes stipulated in article 1 of this law shall apply the provisions of the Islamic Sharia, to the extent or the ta'zir".
She stated that «the crime of murder against the accused of retribution crimes, the Islamic law is the applicable in this regard, and indicate whether the accused juvenile or adult, and is considered legitimate puberty».
The court explained that «the appeal verdict in favor of the preliminary judgment was based on the statement of the attainment of the attainment of the forensic puberty based on the forensic report, which stated that he is a legal adult, as well as being over 17 years and nine months of age, as is consistent from the birth certificate attached to the papers, which is achieved With him the right to criminal responsibility legitimate ».
The court also rejected the defendant's claim that he had a legal defense, that the victim was the first to infringe his brother, and that he suffered a minor injury without the intention of killing him.
The court also rejected the request of the accused to assign a specialized medical committee to review the medical reports of the victim, to indicate whether the apparent failure in the rescue of the victim led to his death or not, stressing that the trial court has the full authority to obtain an understanding of the reality in the case and to assess its evidence, Including the report of experts and draw the truth from it.
self-defense
The Federal Supreme Court affirmed that “the decision is legally and lawfully, that the right of legitimate self-defense is fulfilled by certain conditions, including that the aggressor faces an attack on himself or his property, that the attack or danger is immediate and about to occur, and that the defense is necessary to respond to the aggression, and that The defense is appropriate to respond to the aggression, and determine the extent of the aggression and simplicity is up to the estimation of the aggressor ».
"According to Article 56 of the Penal Code, the right of legitimate defense can only be established if the defender faces an immediate danger of a crime against himself, his property, or the same, or his property, and I believe that this danger exists, and his belief was based on reasonable grounds. The defender must resort to the public authorities to prevent the danger in a timely manner, and that the defender has no other means to pay this risk, and that the defense is necessary to pay the attack and proportionate to him ».
The Federal Court held that the assessment of the incident from which the conclusion of the case of the legitimate defense or its absence relates to the merits of the case.
It concluded that these conditions did not exist in the actions of the accused, supporting the conclusion of the judgment on the basis of admissible evidence of fixed origin.