The Supreme Federal Court overturned an appeals judgment, which imposed life sentences, imprisonment and deportation, against persons accused of drug trafficking and drug use, as it showed that the ruling violated the law, as it demonstrated their conviction based on the statements of each other, while one lawyer was defending them together, despite Their interest, opposing the decision to refer the case to the Court of Appeal for further review.

In the details, the Public Prosecution referred two defendants to the criminal trial, accusing them of possessing heroin drugs with the intent of trafficking and drug abuse, and the second accused was charged with a third charge, which is the abuse of psychotropic substances, demanding that they be punished in accordance with the articles of the Anti-Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Law.

The First Instance Court ruled unanimously and unanimously to punish those accused of life imprisonment for the first charge assigned to them in drug trafficking, and to imprison the first accused for the charge of drug abuse for two years, and to imprison the second accused for the second and third charges for two years, and deport them from the state after implementing the punishment and confiscating the seizures.

The appeals court upheld the verdict, and the two convicts were not satisfied with this ruling, and we appealed it to the Federal Supreme Court.

The defendant’s defense lawyer, lawyer Ali Al-Abadi, said: “The ruling violated the law and violated the right to defense, in violation of the ruling of the Criminal Procedure Law, which requires a lawyer to appear with each defendant, and it is not permissible to assign a lawyer to defend defendants in the same incident, if their interests contradict, and it is fixed From the minutes of the hearings of both the first-degree court and the second-degree court, he represented with one of the defendants one lawyer to defend them, despite their conflict of interest, as the statements of each of them are evidence of the condemnation of the other, which defects the ruling.

For its part, the Federal Supreme Court upheld this appeal, explaining that it is decided in the court’s ruling that when the conflict of interest between two accused in one crime is necessary, each defendant must have a private lawyer who has full freedom to defend him within the scope of his interest and not others, whenever the statements of one of them represent testimony Proof against the other, so that one lawyer is not able to plead with them, and the papers of the first and appeal rulings are fixed in the papers that they denote the defendants' convictions of each other's statements and that in both rulings such as one lawyer for both of them, despite their conflict of interest, which defects the ruling in contravention of the law what must be reversed And referral.

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