On Sunday, the UAE’s Federal Court of Appeal in Abu Dhabi decided to sentence 57 defendants of Bangladeshi nationality in what is known in the media as the “hoarding case”.
According to the Emirates News Agency WAM, the court sentenced 3 defendants to life imprisonment for calling and inciting them to demonstrate with the aim of pressuring their country’s government, and sentenced 53 others to 10 years in prison and 11 years in prison for one. The accused entered the country illegally and participated in the rally.
The court also decided to expel all the criminals from the state and confiscate the seized devices.
Attorney General Hamad Al Shamsi, Dr. Counselor, previously announced the beginning of an investigation into all the incidents. Collecting Causing riots in various emirates of the country and directing the accused to an urgent trial.
This happened after investigations initiated and supervised by a team of thirty investigators including members of the Public Prosecutor’s Office confirmed that the accused were involved in committing the crimes of gathering in a public place… the rebellion Disturbing public safety, calling and inciting such gatherings and marches, and filming video and audio clips of these actions and posting them on the Internet, after various defendants admitted and confessed to the crimes they were charged with.
During the trial, which received a lot of media coverage, the prosecution asked for the maximum sentence imposed on the defendants.
The court heard the prosecution’s witness, who confirmed that the defendants had gathered and organized numerous marches against the decisions taken in various streets of the country. Bangladesh GovtThis caused riots, disturbing public safety, evading and obstructing the enforcement of laws and regulations, endangering the interests and traffic of individuals, and endangering public and private property in response to this warning.
For his part, the defense lawyer appointed by the court to defend the accused argued that there was no criminal intent and insufficient evidence for the prosecution, asking for the acquittal of the accused for what was charged, the court decided to prosecute because there was enough evidence available that they had committed those crimes.
