The Federal Supreme Court has affirmed a legal principle that the criminal case shall not be filed against drug addicts on their own initiative to the Addiction Treatment Unit or the Public Prosecution, seeking treatment. Of punishment and prosecution.
The Federal Supreme Court recently rejected an appeal by drug users against an appeal judgment, which sentenced him to two years in prison, on charges of drug and psychotropic substance use.
In detail, the prosecution referred a defendant to trial for heroin and psychotropic substances, demanding that he be punished.
The forensic laboratory report revealed that the accused urine sample contained morphine, codeine and mono-acetylmorphine, which is produced in the urine from the abuse of heroin and psychotropic substances.
The Court of First Instance sentenced the defendant to two years in prison and a fine of 10,000 dirhams.
This judgment was not accepted by the accused and he appealed against him. His lawyer said that the verdict erred in the application of the law and violated the fixed papers. Preventing punishment pursuant to Article (43) of Law No. 14 of 1995, concerning the fight against narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
The Federal Supreme Court rejected the appeal of the accused regarding the absence of criminal status, as it indicated that the implementation of Article 43 referred to and the non-initiation of the lawsuit, two conditions: the first to be the accused himself who is applying, and the second condition to apply to the treatment unit or to the Public Prosecution asking for treatment In case of addiction, if the report is from others or has been seized, the accused shall not be exempted from the penalty and the case shall be instituted.
She pointed out that it is evident from the papers that the accused was caught in an abnormal condition, and therefore the condition set by the legislator in article (43), that he applied the drug himself to the treatment unit, has not been met, and therefore there is no place for the implementation of the provisions of this article.
The Court concluded that the appeal judgment convicted the accused on charges of drug and psychotropic substance use.