Who fled who?! .. Justice when it flees from the face of the citizen instead of pursuing him

Yemen

Yamanat

In many criminal cases, citizens, as well as judges and lawyers, are surprised by the description of certain defendants as “fugitives from justice,” even though these people:
They have a known place of residence.
They have not received any mandate to have an adequate legal presence.
No statement was issued by the police officer reporting his disappearance or his abstention.

Sometimes, they are even present in court in another case, and in the same session, it is announced that they are fugitive defendants in a parallel case!

So who is the mouse? Is justice being carried out honestly or is the description of escape used arbitrarily?

The legal rule to describe a “fugitive from justice”.“
The Yemeni Code of Criminal Procedure regulates this subject by:
Article (285): The accused must be summoned again, and if he does not appear, the court orders the publication of his escape.

Article (288): The accused is not considered a fugitive unless he escapes after imprisonment, or has no known place of residence, or there is evidence that he has been in hiding. He is not considered as such if he attends certain sessions and is absent without excuse from others.

Therefore, any description of the accused as a fugitive without fulfilling these conditions is considered invalid in law and contrary to reality.

Insufficient summonses are one of the reasons for “evasion of justice”
The law specifies the details of the summons letter precisely in:
Article (310): It includes: the name of the accused, his place of residence, the time of the incident, a description of the crime, the evidence and the date of the hearing.

Article (311): The public prosecutor must warn the accused and notify him three days before the hearing.

Article (312): Notification must be made in person or at one’s home, and the transfer will only be taken into account if it is notified in accordance with the law.

If the document is not handed over at all or is handed over to a party that does not concern it, it will not produce any legal effect and it is not allowed to be classified as fugitive.

Is the seizure of the fugitive’s money a punishment or a means of denouncing?
Article (290): The court is authorized to order the seizure of the fugitive’s property and to prevent him from disposing of it.

Article (292): From the seized funds, monthly expenses will be paid to those who depend on them.

This procedure is not a punishment, but rather a targeted procedural means to inform him of the matter and ensure that he appears to defend himself.
But practical reality shows that courts rarely resort to it, even though it may be fairer than calling it a malicious leak.

The law itself has contributed to making justice a fugitive
Article (315), paragraph (1): “Every person accused of a crime must attend the trial in person, and attendance by proxy is not accepted, except in cases of fine only. »

On the other hand: The same article, paragraph (2): “The remaining opponents may appear in person or through their agents. »

Here the paradox becomes clear: while the law allows the civil plaintiff to be represented by an attorney, the accused is forced to appear in person, even in minor cases.

This is a blatant distinction between the two opponents, which exhausts the accused and makes its appearance dangerous for him in view of the reality of arbitrary pre-trial detention.

Pre-trial detention… when a citizen flees the prosecution and not justice
Article (184): Pretrial detention is only permitted after interrogation or escape, provided that there is sufficient evidence and the crime is punishable by imprisonment.

Article 194: Release may be granted with or without bail, if the accused undertakes to appear.

But the reality
The prosecution requests immediate detention without sufficient questioning.
It requires strict guarantees even with a place of residence.
She refuses to release in minor cases.

Result
The citizen fears the presence of the prosecution, even if he is innocent, not because of justice, but because of its abuse.

In conclusion
When the authority describes as a “fugitive from justice” anyone who has not been summoned, has not had the power to defend himself and has not fled, then it is justice who is fleeing, and not the other way around.

The accused cannot be deprived of the presence of his representative.
He cannot be placed in pre-trial detention without serious justification.
It is not permitted to describe it as a mouse without proper announcement.

Justice is based on the balance of fairness and not on the assumption of guilt.

Source: Law and Judiciary Gateway channel on Telegram

Yemen