State of Palestine
Judiciary
Appeal Case No. 243/2022
Judgment issued by the Nablus Court of First Instance, in its capacity as an appellate
court authorized to conduct the trial and to deliver the judgment on behalf of the
Palestinian Arab people.
The governing body is headed by Judge Mr. Firas Abdel-Ghani and includes the
members Judges Muhammad Jaradat and Majd Annab.
Court reporter: Shorouq Abu Abdullah
Appellant: Abdul Rahman Asaad Aref Thaher (Nablus, Yasid)
His attorneys: Muhannad Karama and/or Laila Asfour and/or Dhafer Sa'eda
Defendant: State Attorney
Subject of the appeal: The judgment issued by the esteemed Nablus Magistrate
Court in the criminal case No. 2411/2020 of 1/20/2022, convicting the appellant of
the third charge, which is the slander against the Palestinian Authority in violation of
the Article 45 of Decree-Law No.10 of 2018, in terms of Article 191 Penalties No. 16
for the year 1960 and accordingly sentencing him to imprisonment for a period of
three months and obliging him to pay an amount of 100 JD for trial expenses.
Grounds for Appeal
Formally:
The appeal is submitted within the statutory period and fulfils its formal
requirements. Accordingly, the Public Prosecution should accept it in form.
Substantively:
(1) The Magistrate’s Court erred when it ignored the legal arguments raised by the
defence attorney to challenge all procedures, since the arrest of the appellant at
the Preventive Security Service was carried out without a legal arrest warrant
and without a search warrant and/or refusing to present the search warrant, as
well as without a warrant authorizing the invasion of the privacy of
individuals. As the Magistrates Court did not give permission to the defence
attorney and ignored deciding on these defences without any legal
justification. Especially, since the defence insists on the invalidity of all
investigation and arrest procedures against the appellant, and this also requires
the invalidity of his statements which took a course of interrogation during the
interrogation before the Preventive Security Service and the invalidity of all
his statements during Interrogation before the Public Prosecution.
(2) Alternatively, the Nablus Magistrate Court erred in its decision to convict the
appellant, when the indictment against the appellant exceeded the limits.