The 1st Instance National Safety (Criminal) Court continued considering the case of abduction and incarcerating and instigation of committing of crimes and hiding appurtenances belonging to the victim Policeman Mohammed Naif Falah in which thirteen people were accused.
The court was sufficed with the receiving the written final pleadings submitted by the defense attorneys.
The court adjourned the case until Tuesday October 4, 2011 for deliberation and issuance of its verdict.
The 1st Instance National Safety (Criminal) Court continued considering the case of the victim Policeman Saifullah Mohammed Ebrahim in which seven people was accused.
The court heard the testimonies of three defense witnesses upon request from the defense attorneys. The defense attorneys questioned the defense witnesses about their domicile address, their kinship with the defendants and whether they had been accompanying the defendants on the day of the incident that is March 13, 2011 and asked them to specify the exact durations of the defendants’ stay at home and the hour when they departed.
In turn, the military prosecution asked them to specify the exact location in which the defendants were at the time when the incident took place and whether they defendants and defense witnesses left their homes on a specific hour or remained at home throughout the day.
Then the court decided to adjourn the session until Tuesday October 4, 2011 for deliberation and issuance of its ruling provided that the final pleadings are submitted before Sunday September 25, 2011.
The Criminal Court also heard the case of attempted gas cylinder explosion and rallying on a public place and instigation of anti-government feelings and embezzlement of other people’s movable chattels in which the so-called Ahmed Mohammed Abdulla as well as seven other people still at large were accused.
The court heard the defense witnesses’ testimony upon request from the defense attorneys. The defense attorney’s questions tackled whether the first defendant co-inhabited the same home with the defense witnesses and whether he was at home on 16 and 17 May 2011 and whether the defense witnesses knew that the first defendant participated in unlicensed rallies and demonstrations.
The first witness replied that his brother (the accused) had partaken in unlicensed demonstrations only called for by the political societies during recent unrest.
And in reply to a question from the court to the first witness regarding the time of these unlicensed demonstrations in which his brother had participated, he answered: “I don’t remember!”
The military prosecution’s questions to the defense witnesses focused on specifying the location of the first defendant’s room in the house and specifying the times at which the accused exited from his room and whether he left it in the evening during the that period. Then the defense attorney submitted a written final pleading upon court request.
The court decided to adjourn the case until the session on Wednesday September 28, 2011 for deliberation and issuance of its ruling.
The Court also continued considering the case of promoting the overthrow of the political regime, propagating false news and rumors and transmission and displaying of images intended to defame the country as well as rallying and brandishing a sword in which twenty-three people were accused.
The court heard twenty-four defense witnesses upon defense attorney(s) request.
The defense attorney’s questions posed to the defense witnesses focused on whether the accused persons were associated with any licensed or unlicensed political societies and whether the defense witnesses knew that the accused persons had issued provocative statements against the regime in addition to specifying whether the accused persons had any activity that violated security or breached the law.
The defense attorney’s questions also tackled specifying the family relationship between the accused persons and the defense witnesses in addition to specifying the times when they met the accused persons on the day of the incident and whether they had listened or attended at any speeches of the accused persons and to state the speeches contents whether political, religious or social in addition to whether the accused person called for any demonstrations, sit-ins or participated in them and whether they possessed swords in their homes.
The military prosecution questions posed to the defense witnesses focused on whether the defense witnesses accompanied the accused everywhere they moved and whether they attended previous meetings held or listened to speeches made by the accused persons and whether the accused persons were in the habit of informing the defense witnesses about all their personal affairs and specifying the nature of their places of domicile.
Then the court decided to adjourn the session until Tuesday October 4, 2011 for deliberation and issuance of a verdict provided that the final pleadings are submitted before Sunday September 25, 2011.
The court session was attended by Salman Nasser on behalf of the Gulf-European Human Rights Center, media representatives as well as a number of families of the accused persons.