"Lawyer's claims about suspect's probe not rooted in reality"

Manama, Aug. 27 (BNA): Advocate General Haroon Al Zayani affirmed that the statements - attributed to a lawyer and in which he cast doubts on the integrity of the investigation of a suspect - alleging the questioning was held in the absence of his lawyer clashed with the reality on the ground. Commenting on the statements published by Al Wasat newspaper on Thursday, Al Zayani said they did not at all reflect the procedures taken against the defendant since his arrest and until his questioning with the full knowledge of the Public Prosecution. The allegations were an unjustified arbitrary opinion and a biased view that lacked knowledge about the course of investigations, he said. "Even if that lawyer gave himself the right to assess the integrity of investigations for one reason or another, the Public Prosecution accepts criticism of its work only if it is leveled within the courses prescribed by the law and by those with a legal capacity in the specific case. Pretentions by those who are not legally related to the case and are not knowledgeable about the reality are not taken into consideration and are not regarded," he said. The Advocate General added that the suspect mentioned in the newspaper article had been arrested with the knowledge of the General Directorate of Criminal Investigation on August 18, and remanded in custody for four days in accordance with the Law, until he was referred to the Public Prosecution where he was questioned. During the detention, neither the lawyer nor anybody else took the trouble to visit the suspect to be informed about the circumstances and reasons for his arrest, nor did he or anyone else show any desire to attend the questioning session, the Advocate General said. At the same time, the defendant did not take the initiative to name his lawyer, nor did he appoint or request a lawyer to attend the questioning session on August 23, Al Zayani added. “On August 25, the lawyer to whom the statements were attributed submitted a request to attend the questioning, and that was two days after it took place. His request to be present during the session was approved by the Advocate General who affirmed that the Public Prosecution was committed to applying the law without distinction. The law stipulates that the defendant should name his lawyer at the court or during his detention. It also allows the lawyer to do the naming on his behalf. However, the fact is that neither the suspect nor the lawyer submitted a name. And even the request to the Public Prosecution to attend the questioning session was procrastinated until after the end of the session,” he said. "Regarding another claim, the assertion that the Constitution stipulates the presence of a lawyer as an absolute obligation to ensure the validity of procedures is not true," the Advocate General said. “The Constitution ensures all necessary guarantees to exercise the right of defence according to the law. It then left it to the law to regulate the way these guarantees are achieved in a manner that does not affect the suspect's freedom to choose and appoint a lawyer. On its part, the Public Prosecution is strictly and literally committed to the norms prescribed by the law in this regard, and cannot go beyond the defendant's will which he did not express as aforementioned, despite being informed about his rights and legal guarantees," the Advocate General said.