Especially since the indictment is the regulating framework for the facts attributed to the appellant. By referring to the indictment, the Court will find that it has been devoid of any incident indicating the appellant's Slander against the Palestinian Authority, contrary to the text of Article 45 of DecreeLaw No.10 of 2018, according to the court’s reason for its decision of conviction. Rather, the court will find that the facts cited by the Public Prosecution in the context of accusing the appellant of what is attributed to him constitute nothing but a violation of the provisions of the law and the Palestinian Basic Law, which is a legal transgression by the Public Prosecution, with the aim of giving legitimacy to the behaviour of the executive authority in suppressing press freedoms and liberties. If what is attributed to the appellant in the indictment constitutes a crime, the Public Prosecution would have to pursue Roya TV channel responsible for broadcasting these satirical TV shows. However, the Public Prosecution was designed to be in this file, especially the indictment, to be a safety valve to suppress freedoms and give legitimacy to abuses committed by the executive authority and practiced against citizens, journalists and human rights defenders, who defend their opinions and express themselves under the threat of arbitrary arrest without an arrest warrant, as happened with the journalist Abd al-Rahman Daher (the appellant). And an indictment in which the Public Prosecution disregards its powers deprived of it in the context of the executive authority's encroachment on the powers of the legislative and judicial authorities attributed to the appellant. (3) In turn, the Preventive Security Service interrogated the appellant after his arrest and confiscated his private devices without an arrest warrant, search, or permission to access the appellant’s devices later. Therefore, the Public Prosecution provided legal cover to the Preventive Security Service for its transgression of the law. The Magistrates Court also deals with this matter with its authority and control within the framework of the final investigation it is conducting and until the issuance of a final judgment. (4) The Nablus Magistrate Court erred in its decision on the subject of this appeal in the part related to the third charge, which is the slander against the Palestinian Authority, contrary to the provisions of Article 45 of Decree Law No. 10 of 2018 on cybercrime, in the sense of Article 191 Penalties No.16 of 1960, and he was convicted and sentenced accordingly to three months imprisonment without verifying any element of the crime attributed to the appellant. As the Court notes that the elements of the act attributed to the appellant are not verified in any of its elements. The law requires that all the following material elements of the act be attributed to the appellant: “The offender committed an activity that consists of stating internal thoughts regarding the National Assembly and disseminating such statements to the public. The acts attributed to the victim must be specific act and cannot be merely a desire to act. Moreover, it must be based on a specific legal article … etc.”