The execution of a young man deliberately killed a knife in a quarrel

The Federal Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by a young defendant against an appeal sentence that sentenced him to death after being convicted of deliberately killing a person using a knife following a fight.

In detail, the prosecution referred a defendant to trial on charges of deliberately killing and aggressing a person by stabbing him with a sharp knife, demanding that he be punished.

The Court of First Instance unanimously ruled that the accused should be punished and punished by the means available for the deliberate killing of the victim, provided that the judgment is carried out in the presence of the legal guardian or his legal representative, and upheld by the Court of Appeal.

This verdict was not accepted by the defendant and he was challenged by cassation, as his defense stated that "the verdict violated the law and erred in its application and violated Islamic law, as it was filed before the trial court of non-jurisdiction and referred the case to the juvenile court for trial because it was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the crime, which flaws and requires revocation." .

The Federal Supreme Court rejected this appeal, pointing out that "the crimes of juvenile delinquents and homeless were subject to the provisions of Islamic law, like the crimes of borders, retribution and parental responsibility was the responsibility in this law is the mind and puberty and does not make the difference in the stages of age after puberty in the assessment of the punishment prescribed for the act It is imperative to apply the provisions of Islamic law in border crimes, retribution and amicable crimes, and that the responsibility of Sharia is puberty and reason. If puberty is established in an emirate or age, it proves the full capacity of the human being. There is no full responsibility as long as it has reached a reasonable level. "

She pointed out that the text of Article 1 of Law No. 3 of 1996 on the jurisdiction of the Shari'a Courts is legally prescribed. "The Shari'a Courts are exclusively competent to hear the following crimes and all related to, subordinate or be presented to them, including border crimes, retribution and amicable crimes." The second of the same law stipulates that "all the crimes stipulated in Article 1 of this law shall apply to the provisions of the Islamic Shari'a to the extent or reinforcement."

"Intentional homicide committed against the accused is a retribution crime. The Islamic Sharia is applicable in this regard and indicate whether the accused is a juvenile or an adult and is regarded as a legitimate act."

The court explained that "the appeal judgment in favor of the preliminary judgment was based on the statement of the attainment of the attainment of forensic puberty based on the report of forensic medicine, which stated that he was a legal adult, as well as being over seventeen years and nine months of age, as is also consistent from the birth certificate attached to the papers, which is verified with him He has a legitimate criminal responsibility. "

The Federal Supreme Court also rejected the defendant's claim that he had a legal defense and that the victim was the first to infringe on his brother and that he suffered a minor injury without intent to kill him.

In its response, the court affirmed that the decision is legally and legally determined that the right of self-defense, called Islamic jurisprudence, to pay the questioner is achieved by fulfilling its conditions for the victim to face an assault on himself or his property. The defense is necessary to respond to the aggression, the defense is appropriate to respond to the aggression, and the determination of the gravity and simplicity of the aggression is at the discretion of the aggressor, and in accordance with article 56 of the Penal Code, the right of legitimate defense can be established only if the defender faces a threat posed by a crime against himself or his property Other or his money and I think do this The defender is unable to appeal to the public authorities to prevent the danger in a timely manner and that the defender has no other means to advance this risk and that the defense is required to pay the attack and proportionate to it. Concerning the merits of the case, the court of merits alone shall have the right to adjudicate it without any comment on it when the judgment is based on the verdict and leads to what has been concluded.

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.

The court also rejected the request of the accused to delegate a specialized medical committee to review the medical reports of the victim to indicate whether the apparent failure in the ambulance 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 estimate its evidence, including the report of experts And draw truth from them.