In a statement by the public prosecutor, on Monday, following comments posted on social media by the so-called "the body in support of Soulaimane Rissouni" about the verdict handed to him and which included many allegations as his arbitrary arrest for his journalistic views without charging him for eight months, depriving him of getting informed about the accusations brought against him, violating his right to be presumed innocent, refusal by the court of his requests and pleas, forcing his absence and not allowing him to attend the hearing and debating his case in absentia and without summoning his defense.

The same source explained that, contrary to these allegations, the person concerned is sued in cases of common law unrelated to his journalistic profession, and he was notified about them and brought before the investigating judge, in the presence of his lawyers, to answer to them on 25/05/2020, adding that the investigating judge's decision to arrest this person and take him into custody was made pursuant to the law and his lawyers have already, during the preliminary investigation, exercised their right to appeal before the criminal chamber three times, noting that the latter ruled and confirmed the decision after making sure that it is lawful.

The statement added that the defense of the accused received a copy of all documents related to the case, since he appeared for the first time before the investigating magistrate on 25/05/2020, underlining that the defense never brought up, during the investigation, the issue of not getting informed about the case's documents, in addition, and to foster his defense's rights and guarantee his presumption of innocence, the court agreed that he gets an additional copy of the case's file inside the prison. The statement underlined that accepting or refusing requests and pleas falls under the discretionary competence of the court dealing with case.

It noted that the accused was accompanied by his lawyers in nine hearings and the case was every time postponed either upon his request or upon that of his defense for a period of four months since the first hearing dated 09/02/2021 and until the hearing dated 10/06/2021. However, in the hearing dated 15/06/2021, the person concerned refused to attend as specified in the report by the prison administration and was given a second chance in the hearing of 22/06/2021 which he turned down again, pushing the court to implement the legal provisions laid down in the criminal procedure code, especially article 423, warning him about the pressing need to attend through a public force agent, in accordance with the provisions of this article. However, the person concerned insisted on his stance by refusing to attend, leaving the court no choice but to continue looking into the case in his absence while entrusting the court clerk with the mission of visiting the prison following each hearing to communicate the proceedings to this person.

During the July 6th hearing, his defense attended and announced to the court its withdrawal from the case and left the court hall, which forced the court to implement the legal provisions in force in such cases which are stipulated in Article 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court ordered that lawyers be appointed for him within the framework of legal aid, by writing to the president of the Bar Association in Casablanca, who appointed three lawyers that attended the July 8th hearing but were unable to carry out their duties as the members of the defense appointed by the concerned person attended the hearing and renewed their commitment to their previous position, which constituted an obstruction of the trial, according to the same source.

By applying the provisions of Articles 317 and 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are applicable to all similar cases without discrimination, with regard to how to deal with "the defendant's failure to attend" and "his defense’s refusal to carry out its duties," the Court has backed the proper application of the law, it added, noting that the legal and human rights observers can refer to the above legal requirements to ensure whether they are compatible with the circumstances of the case, given the fact that the refusal to provide assistance by the lawyer to the court, whether in terms of hearings or procedures, constitutes a professional mistake, by virtue of Article 39 of the law regulating the lawyer's profession.

The Public Prosecutor has unfortunately seen that, instead of complying with the decisions issued by the Judiciary after examining the pleas submitted by the concerned defense, the trial process was disrupted by imposing a de facto policy on the course of its proceedings and by implementing by force the wishes of some parties to the case despite that the latter were rejected by the court, the source stressed, adding that non-compliance with court's decisions, contesting legally established judicial ruling and seeking to disrupt the trial proceedings by imposing the fait accompli, is considered a disregard for the provisions of the Judiciary and a violation of its independence.

According to the same source, the rights of the accused’s defense and the presumption of innocence remain guaranteed to the person concerned in accordance with the law, as he has the right to appeal the decision issued against him, which would bring the case before the Criminal Appeals Chamber, before which the defendant has the right to appeal whatever trial aspects he deems appropriate. 

Commenting on the sentences happens after reviewing them and not before that in order to avoid the fallacies that may result from the matter, which can only be explained by an attempt to influence the judiciary, the statement concluded.