The Court of Cassation issues its ruling on the case known as “insulting the judiciary”, EOHR calls for the release of Mounib, al-Zayat, Qandil and al-Fakharani

October 17th, 2018 by Editor

The Court of Cassation issues its ruling on the case known as “insulting the judiciary”, EOHR calls for the release of Mounib, al-Zayat, Qandil and al-Fakharani

 

The Court of Cassation ruled on Monday 15/10/2018 to reject the appeal of former president Mohammed Morsi and 17 other defendants, and reaffirmed sentences ranging from 3 years of imprisonment and a 30,000 EGP fine in the case known publicly under as the “case of insulting the judiciary”.

Muntasser al-Zayat (Lawyer), Hamdi al-Fakharani (Lawyer, ex MP), Abdel Halim Qandil (Journalist) and Mohamed Mounib (Lawyer, ex MP)” handed themselves over to the Court of Cassation on Monday morning right before their appeal session against the prison sentence and remained in security custody until the session ended yesterday afternoon and were escorted to prison after their appeal was rejected by the Court. The four defendants we sentenced in the previous phases of their trail in absentia, and were only present in the final session before the court of Cassation’s ruling. This means that this verdict cannot be considered final and the 4 defendants may take legal measures of appeal that may grant them a retrial. Therefor the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (EOHR) calls upon the authorities to release the 4 defendants so that they can exercise their legal right to demand a retrial.

The court rejected the appeal of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood leaders indicted in the case and reaffirmed the 3 year prison sentence against them  issued last year by the Cairo Criminal court. The ruling however considered the appeals of Muntasser al-Zayat , Hamdi al-Fakharani , Abdel Halim Qandil, Mohamed Mounib, Mohamed Al Omda (ex MP), Mustafa Al Nagar (ex MP, political activist) and Abdel Rahman Al Qaradawi (Activist, poet) inadmissible.

For his part, Dr. Hafez Abu Seada, president of EOHR, said that the verdict against the defendants in fact is in absentia and was in the absence of an attorney for the accused in front of the criminal court at the time of the trial and before the amendment of the criminal procedures law. The point is that whether the ruling is in absentia or not is determined by the given reality and not the description assigned by the court so the prisoners must be enabled to appeal this verdict through releasing them from prison immediately.

 

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 17th, 2018 at 6:27 pm and is filed under Statements. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.