The Supreme Federal Court has upheld the verdict of two lower courts which acquitted a defendant charged with sodomy for lack of sufficient evidence since the defendant did not admit to the crime.

By Wael Yousef

  • Follow us on
  • google-news
  • whatsapp
  • telegram

Published: Wed 7 Dec 2005, 1:04 PM

Last updated: Thu 2 Apr 2015, 6:09 PM

The Public Prosecution had accused G.A. and M.S. of sodomy and called for prosecuting them according to the rules of Islamic Shariah.

Al Dhafrah Shariah Criminal Court of First Instance acquitted G.A.

The Public Prosecution contested the verdict and referred the defendant to the Abu Dhabi Shariah Punitive Court, which upheld the verdict.

The Public Prosecution appealed again before the Supreme Federal Court arguing that the defendants admitted to sodomy before being arrested and they had been charged with the same crime before. Besides, the forensic doctor's report confirmed that the tissue seized from the room contained G.A's semen. However, the two lower courts dismissed all those proofs.

The Supreme Federal Court upheld the verdict of the two lower courts highlighting the court's right to analyse the evidences and uphold whatever is found concrete. Having some doubt about any evidence is enough for the court to exonerate any defendant, it observed, adding that punitive rulings are based on rules and certainty not on assumptions.

Doubt is interpreted as for the good of the defendant, and such crimes cannot be upheld without admission, the court observed.

Moreover, the defendants recanted their statements and denied sodomy before the Public Prosecution and the two courts. The forensic report, in addition, confirmed that M.S. was accustomed to sodomy a long time ago. In other words, he could not be forced to such crime.

Regarding G.A's semen that was found on the tissue, the court did not find it as a concrete proof of sodomy, especially when the defendant's wife and mother were found at home. Concerning the second defendant's statements, the court found them baseless according to the rulings of Shariah because he had been charged with sodomy before.

Consequently, the Supreme Federal Court annulled the appeal and acquitted the defendant of sodomy charge.

More news from