March 3rd, 2014 by Editor
Alexandria Criminal Court has issued its judgment of 10 years rigorous imprisonment on the accused of the killing of Khalid Said, dismissing the civil lawsuit in the case, after the previous judgment of 7 years imprisonment for each other.
The case Circumstances back in June 2010 when Khalid Said was in one of Internet cafés at Cleopatra district in Alexandria.While two informers from Sedi Gaber police station assaulted him severely which led to his death after being tortured.
The Alexandria Criminal Court Chamber 14 in its meeting on Wednesday 26/11/2011 sentenced two detectives who were accused of case to 7 years imprisonment, where he accused the appeals court first considered the June first meeting of retrial accused of killing Khalid said.
The EOHR, Sympathize with Khaled said family since the first moments of the incident and Mr. Hafez Abu Seada, the President of the Organization and its Member Body defense civil claimants demanded during a 21/1/2011 sitting to apply the International Convention against torture in this case, where two of fundamental condition revoked the requirement that a victim of torture be accused , and the availability to get recognition, so that the text of article 126 of penal code after the application of the Convention became punishable by torture of any person for the purpose of obtaining a confession or without reasons, based on the judgment of the Supreme State Security emergency in the case of a railway strike in 1986, which was the reference to the International Convention on the rights Economic, social, and ratified by the Egyptian Government and become a part of its internal low according to article no 151 from the constitution.This thing applies on Egypt situation according to the international convention against torture.
The defense at the sitting mentioned before, declared her join for Public prosecutor call by dismissing article 129 and replace it by article 282 the 2nd paragraph of penal code which is punishable by temporary hard labor, confirms that this requirement is consistent with article 126 and 234 to the case file.
This entry was posted on Monday, March 3rd, 2014 at 12:54 pm and is filed under Statements. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.