United Arab Emirates: Case against 84 accused of running a terrorist organization adjourned until April 18 – News

The State Security Chamber of the Federal Court of Appeal in Abu Dhabi has adjourned the hearing in Case No. 87 of 2023 – State Security Crimes, involving the terrorist ‘Justice and Dignity Committee Organization’ until the 18th April, to complete the hearing of the defense arguments. .

Eighty-four defendants are accused in this case of establishing and managing a clandestine terrorist organization in the United Arab Emirates known as the “Justice and Dignity Committee.” The charges against them include planning terrorist acts, raising funds for the Organization and concealing the origin and destination of those funds.

During the session held on Thursday, attended by the defendants’ families and media representatives, the court heard more than three and a half hours of defense arguments.

Stay up to date with the latest news. Follow KT on WhatsApp channels.

The defendants’ lawyers challenged the validity of the charges presented by the Prosecutor’s Office and questioned the evidence presented, including the investigations and technical and financial reports.

They argued that these reports were largely based on analysis, leaving room for doubt and uncertainty. They demanded the acquittal and release of their clients, highlighting the absence of criminal intent due to their clients’ ignorance of the organization’s true intentions.

The court allowed, during the defense arguments, any of the accused to want to talk about themselves and comment on the prosecution’s evidence and the arguments of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and what they wanted to add in terms of arguments and defense.

In more detail, the defense argued during the session that the court lacked jurisdiction due to a previous ruling in a previous case, i.e. Case No. 79 of 2012. This constituted a fundamental aspect of its defense strategy, which all defendants supported.

It is noteworthy that the Public Ministry dedicated part of its previous sessions to addressing the argument of lack of jurisprudence. They highlighted distinctions between the current case and previous trials involving the defendants, supported by evidence.

The Attorney General’s Office further strengthened its argument by outlining the criteria governing the request to dismiss a case due to a previous ruling. They also cited specific rulings from the Federal Supreme Court to support their position.

[ad_2]