Life imprisonment for three,deportation for54others of Bangladeshi nationality in the“gathering”case
The Abu Dhabi Federal Court of Appeal yesterday convicted 57 Bangladeshi defendants in the case known in the media as the “assembly case.” The court sentenced three defendants to life imprisonment for calling for and inciting them to demonstrate with the aim of pressuring their country’s government. It also sentenced 53 others to 10 years in prison, and one defendant who entered the country illegally and participated in the assembly to 11 years in prison.
The court also ruled to deport all convicts from the country after serving their sentences and to confiscate the seized devices.
The Attorney General, Counselor Dr. Hamad Al Shamsi, had previously announced the start of an investigation into all incidents of gathering and rioting that occurred in several emirates in the country and referring the accused to an urgent trial, after the investigations supervised and conducted by a team of thirty members of the Public Prosecution confirmed the involvement of the accused in committing the crimes of gathering in a public place with the intent to riot and disturb public security, calling for and inciting these gatherings and marches, and filming visual and audio clips of these acts and publishing them on the Internet, and after many of the accused confessed and admitted to committing the crimes attributed to them.
During the trial, which was covered by the media, the Public Prosecution demanded the maximum penalty for the accused.
The court heard the prosecution witness who confirmed that the accused had gathered and organised large numbers of marches in a number of streets in the country in protest against decisions issued by the Bangladeshi government, which led to riots, disruption of public security, prevention and disruption of the implementation of laws and regulations, the interests of individuals and traffic, and endangering public and private property, and that the police had warned the crowds to disperse and leave, but they did not respond to this warning.
For his part, the defense attorney, who was appointed by the court to defend the accused, argued that there was no criminal intent behind this gathering and that the evidence of the accusation was insufficient, demanding that the accused be acquitted of what was attributed to them. However, the court ruled to convict them due to the availability of sufficient evidence of their committing these crimes.
