Public Prosecution: Death penalty based on compelling evidence

Manama, Jan. 15 (BNA): The final death penalty sentence upheld against the convicts indicted in the Daih bomb blast was based on compelling evidence, said Haroun Alzayani, Attorney General affiliated with the Public Prosecutor’s technical office. His statement was issued in the aftermath of the execution of the convicts who were sentenced to capital punishment in connection with the explosion which claimed the lives of an officer and two other policemen on March 3, 2014. The evidence included the witnesses’ testimonies, the convicts’ own confessions, the material tools and telecommunication devices which were found with the executed convicts and others. Results of forensic reports also corroborated with the verbal testimonies, material evidence as well as the circumstances that surrounded the Daih deadly explosion. The High Criminal Court took into consideration the detailed compelling evidence in issuing the death verdict, which was upheld respectively by the High Court of Appeals and then by the Court of Cassation. The Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeals based the death penalty sentence on material evidence which implicated, without any presumption of doubt, the defendants in the crimes. Thus, the convicts were caught with materials and substances which are are in making the lethal explosives. Human cells collected from one bomb which was defused at the scene of the blast were found to be matching with the DNA of one of the executed convicts. Forensic examination of the mobile phones revealed that the convicts used a special programme in their communications. The taped conversations revealed that the trio used the same programme during the days before the blast. They used the same programme while perpetrating their crime, either to coordinate, or to monitor the policemen’s movements before targeting the security forces. The investigation revealed that the two mobile phones which were used in detonating the bomb that targeted the security forces had been tested the night before the blast, with the full knowledge of one of the convicts, near the house of another convict. The reports submitted by the coroner and the forensic experts matched with the convicts’ confessions, regarding the nature of the substances which were used to make the bomb and the detonation technique. Some defence lawyers sought in their pleadings to challenge the confessions and consider them null and void, claiming that were made under duress. The High Criminal Court and the High Court of Appeals dismissed the defense lawyers’ claims as unsubstantiated, affirming that the convicts gave their confessions of their own accord and free will. The Court of Cassation upheld the death penalty, ruling that the confessions, which were substantiated by compelling evidence, were not under duress. The case deliberations were held respectively at the High Criminal Court, two different instances of the High Court of Appeals. It was also deliberated twice before the Court of Cassation which upheld the final verdict. The convicts received fair public trials and all the legal guarantees, in the presence of their lawyers, who had access to the case before delivering their pleadings. Twelve judges handled the case during the different stages of judicial litigation and found the evidence compelling, dismissing any presumed doubt and finding no reason to grant the convicts mercy or commute the death penalty.