مرافعة المستشار مصطفى رمضان عن الاستاذ صبرى كامل ثم الحكم وتلفيقات الام وكذبها #الحق #الحقيقة #مصر

The important civil matter today is not just defense. The important matter today is to reach the abstract truth so that everyone can rest. I believe that what the victim is concerned with is not just proving the charge against the accused. Rather, what concerns them is to know the truth of whether this act occurred or not, and if it did occur, whether the accused specifically is the one who committed this act or not. These papers, with their current coordinates and ongoing data, have proven incapable of proving two facts: the fact of the act itself, and the fact of attributing it to the accused. Just as the defendant has rights, everyone volunteered, even those who have not yet obtained a copy of the lawsuit. The social body was mobilized regarding a file that exists for this lawsuit, which is not the same file before the court's justice. It is a file full of lies, slander, publications, posts, and trends. Therefore, the defense today, which is the plaintiff in the criminal case, stands today before the court's justice, and the cheers outside are issuing verdicts. These are the atmospheres that have surrounded this case, atmospheres that corrupt reassurance and kill salvation. It is thought that whim might rule justice, or rather, it desires to move us from the rule of crisis to the crisis of rule. So, sir, before the defense clarifies the truth of these papers without repeating what my colleague has already stated, and even if there are passages that will overlap, they will be with a different legal basis or perspective. Before observing the coordinates of the incident, its data, and its surrounding circumstances, there are established facts in these papers that are irrefutable. That is, facts that are placed under the heading of "unquestionable." Facts that these papers have revealed, and constants that these papers have exposed from the depths of their well. The first truth is that none of the witnesses to the incident, nor any of the witnesses whose testimony was against the accused, was a witness to the sight. That is, the legal value of their testimony should only be placed under one and only one heading: it is hearsay testimony. And hearsay testimony has legal value in terms of reassuring the court, but that's it. The legal value of the child's statements, the defendant himself, its legal value is that he was questioned for investigative purposes. Its legal value is that it is an act of investigation, meaning that the statements of that child are heard for corroboration. So, even the child's statements, which initiated this lawsuit from its inception to its utmost extent, based on these statements, do not exceed mere corroboration. But that's it. The Public Prosecution was able to decide and ordered the dismissal of the case, or rather, issued its decision not to prosecute twice. The defense wants to say what? The defense wants to say that the Public Prosecution's authority to refer the accused to criminal trial is based on probability. That is, the prosecution favors referral, and this has a meaning that you, gentlemen, have told us about: hesitation. This means that the Public Prosecution refers to criminal trial not with certainty, but with mere doubt. So, it is an authority that exercises its power through probability, meaning doubt. So, this authority of doubt, doubt, then the only certainty I have in this case is doubt. The authority that exercises its power through probability, doubt, has doubted the ability of these collective evidence to be called collective. I found that all this evidence is insufficient to form a conviction. The authority of doubt, which exercises its power through probability, then the certainty in all these papers, the only certainty, the absolute certainty, the certainty that forms an unquestionable constant, what is it? Is it questioning the authority of the Criminal Court convened in chambers regarding its powers to cancel the decision not to prosecute? But I want to say that what is certain in these papers is that nothing new has been found in the period between the issuance of the prosecution's decision and the issuance of the Criminal Court's decision convened in chambers. What does this mean? It means that what was issued by the Criminal Court convened in chambers is merely an assessment of the existing evidence, not a final ruling. So, even the Criminal Court, when considering the matter or the cancellation of the decision not to prosecute, was exercising investigative authority. And since there was nothing new, its assessment came. This means that I can never say, sir, that the court's decision regarding cancellation approaches a final ruling or approaches being a binding argument, because it is an assessment. It is an assessment by the court convened in chambers, and it was preceded by an assessment by the Public Prosecution not to prosecute. So, the only certainty, once again, appears to us as certainty, or that certainty is doubt. What else is the fifth truth in these papers? There is no dispute about it: the time, place, and method. The Public Prosecution's description, or rather, the Criminal Court's description convened in chambers, the charge came without a date. That is, this man is being tried for a crime we don't know when it was committed in the papers. That's why the prosecution stated a fixed date, clear ambiguity. This is a fixed truth, yes, it is fixed. Does it contribute to the accumulation of doubts and suspicions? Yes, of course. What about the place of the incident? Can anyone today assert and swear where this incident occurred? If it occurred, did it occur in the bathroom or in the car? The description does not tell us at all. It does not say that he did such and such in the company of such and such, and they waited for him, and such and such entered. It does not even say that the description failed to specify the place, just as it previously failed to specify the time. But that's it. Even the method of committing the crime. The court, the prosecution referred us to Article 268, which speaks of force, because Article 269 speaks of consent. Nevertheless, the description omitted that this alleged and fabricated act against the accused did not mention force. The description does not have the word "force." The Egyptian life sentence, thank God, is life. He will enter a second school, which is stupidity. It started when he took me from the bathroom and told me, "You are Yassin, you were tired. We had to go to the doctor to see Yassin is tired." He told me, "I wasn't tired. I was freed from the moment I was master." He put the knife... You are right, when you were sure he was traveling, you didn't say anything. He told me, "It was just Mom and Dad, but I... I know what happened from the beginning." He told me that he was the one who took me to the bathroom. You didn't tell him before you entered the class. He told me, "I'm fine." So, when he entered, he found the master entered him, and he did what he did to him, and scratched him, and hit him with a stick, and grabbed him from that place. It was his place. Of course, he did that to me. And when he was released, he saw that he was giving us. And when he reached the classroom, he knew. He went to the teacher and told her, "Call my mom. I want my mom." So he told his class teacher. The class teacher, when she knew, sent him to the principal. When he went to the principal, she found this man there with a stick and told him, "Hit him. Hit him with the stick like yesterday." And the second time, he found her outside in the garden. He took her and went to his office and told me that he picked me up like this and wrote on my nose, my mouth, and picked me up from that place. He told me, "He took me into the car." And after he took me into the car, it was finished, and I went to him. I went to the class teacher. She told me, "You were with him." I told her, "This is the master. This is what happened to me." Sir, I contacted the police inspectors, but no one responded. To the point that I reached nine months, and he was the one responsible for the inspector, the police inspector who was responsible for the investigation, Islam, left without informing me of the investigations. And as you, Madam, said, what happened between us happened. I am harmed, or I waive the truth. And he brought a strange Mustafa, but Ravi. And when he sat with him, he told me, "I did not specify the time." I told him, "The investigations are delayed." He told me, "I don't care. I did not specify the time when he was in charge." And he called me several times from the investigation file. He did not give me the life sentence, thank God, life.