The Federal Supreme Court rejected the appeal of a drug dealer against a verdict that sentenced him to life imprisonment and deportation from the state, confirming the availability of evidence of his drug trafficking, based on witness statements and his admission that he was selling narcotics to several people, citing their names in a book.
In detail, information was received by the competent authorities that the accused possessed narcotics and psychotropic substances for the purpose of abuse and trafficking. After confirming the information, a warrant was issued and seized by the Public Prosecutor, and a self-search found a pack of cigarettes inside six tin rolls containing narcotics. A search of his residence found 14 transparent plastic bags containing “hashish”, a plastic bottle containing cannabis seeds, a pack of cigarettes inside 10 rolls containing “hashish”, a leather wallet inside “hashish” rolls, and a metal box containing used cigarette butts. , And a cloth cupboard with seedlings to sprout Turned out to be cannabis.
The defendant confessed to possession of the seizures and admitted that he was selling the drug to people, whose names had been recorded in a private book and that he had planted the seeds of cannabis.
Other defendants in the case admitted that they had bought drugs from him, and the forensic laboratory report proved that the defendant's urine sample contained cannabis, that the seized plant was cannabis, and the prosecution referred him to criminal prosecution for drug trafficking and abuse, demanding that he be punished.
The court of first instance sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment for drug trafficking, imprisonment for two years for the use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and his deportation from the State after the execution of the sentence, with the seizure of seizures, and upheld by the Court of Appeal.
The defendant did not accept this verdict, and he appealed to him before the Federal Supreme Court, where his lawyer said that the verdict was a mistake in the application of the law, and condemned his client on the basis of evidence derived from invalid procedures, and relied on the fact of arrest and search, where he issued a warrant to arrest and search his client without serious investigations Confirmed.
The court rejected the appeal, asserting that the trial court has the full authority to derive its conviction to prove the crime from any evidence that it reassures, as long as this evidence is taken from the papers.The assessment of the validity of the confession and its value in the proof is one of the matters under the jurisdiction of the trial court.