However, in considering the evidence of the Public Prosecution, it was not proven
that the appellant issued any statement or act prejudicial to any official entity
and/or any official body or institution until the text of the aforementioned article
condemned and sentenced accordingly and alternately. Even if what the Public
Prosecution attributed to the appellant is correct, freedom of opinion and
expression is guaranteed to every person to say what he wants and to express what
is going on within him within the limits of the law. On the failed assumption that
what is attributed to the appellant is true, as the Public Prosecution did not prove
that the appellant abused by saying or doing against the institutions of power and /
or broadcasting that among the people until he was convicted of this charge.
(5) The Magistrate Court erred in its judgment to convict the appellant and
justified that by saying, as stated in the Court’s judgment, “This incident is
proven through the evidence reviewed above, as it was mentioned in the
highlights n/2, which contains an order to access the accused’s private devices
issued by the Public Prosecution in 23/8/22020 until the extraction of all the
evidence proving the charges against him. As it was stated through the extracts
that the accused sent a message denouncing the Security Services and
describing them as “Screw them and their Security services. Such thugs,
disrespectful people.” The conciliation was not successful in interpreting the
text of the aforementioned article and applying the elements of the crime
attributed to the appellant. The Court did not prove that the appellant had
broadcasted that among the people, as it assumes its validity, it was just a
private conversation between two people as it was stated in the Court’s
judgment at the beginning of the fifth page that the aforementioned accused,
dated in 28/7/2020. During a conversation on Facebook with a person called
Nassim, the accused described the security men as thugs and cursed them with
the words: “Screw them and their Security Services. Such thugs, disrespectful
people.”
Since the Court’s judgment, the subject of this appeal, was not based on any legal
basis in this reasoning, as the text of Article 45 of the Cybercrime Law, Article
191 Penalties No.16 of 1960, on which the court relied in issuing its ruling on the
charge of slander against the Palestinian Authority, among the elements of the act
attributed to the appellant does not fulfil the material element, and it has been
proven through this incident, assuming its validity, that what was attributed to the
appellant is about a private chat and was not mentioned to the public.
(6) In turn, the Magistrates’ Court erred in its decision, the subject of this appeal,
to convict the appellant in the part related to the third charge, as it did not
properly asses the evidence until the conviction decision was issued, as none
of the facts contained in the indictment were proven against the appellant in
any way.
(7) Alternately, the Nablus Magistrate Court erred in its decision on this appeal,
since, by referring to the evidence of the Public Prosecution, your esteemed
Court finds that what is attributed to the appellant, assuming its validity, are
facts that occurred prior to the issuance of Decree Law No. 10 of 2018
regarding cybercrimes. The facts in respect of which the appellant was