Jordan.. The trial of those accused in the Karak Church attack begins, and a former judge explains the procedures

The first trial session of the defendants in the case of the armed attack on the Church of St. George in the village of Hammoud in Karak Governorate was held in the Jordanian capital, Amman, on Wednesday, one day after the Public Prosecutor of the State Security Court referred the case file to the court, and assigned 7 main terrorism-related charges to the defendants. The lawyer for the victims’ families, Amer Al-Halsa, said in a brief statement to the Ofoq News website in Arabic, that the first session was characterized by “transparency and calm,” without revealing the details of what happened during it.

The issue of the armed attack on the Hamoud village church is receiving widespread attention in Jordan and the world, as the attack occurred on October 23 last year, and was carried out by three gunmen, and the Jordanian authorities described it as a “terrorist act.” The attack resulted in the death of 9 people and the injury of others, all of them from the Al-Halsa clan, one of the largest Christian clans in Karak Governorate.

The charges assigned to the defendants, according to what the Public Prosecutor announced to the court, included carrying out terrorist acts that led to the death of a person by association, repeated nine times, and carrying out terrorist acts using weapons and ammunition jointly, repeated twice, in addition to two counts of possessing weapons and possessing ammunition with the intention of using them to carry out terrorist acts jointly, and conspiracy with the intention of carrying out terrorist acts using weapons. The indictment also included two charges of promoting the ideas of a terrorist group, and carrying out actions that would disrupt public order and endanger the safety and security of society.

Close sessions and trial procedures. For his part, the lawyer and former head of the State Security Military Court, Muhammad Al-Afif, said that the principle in this type of case is that trial sessions are held at close intervals, and may be daily or day after day, similar to previous terrorist cases heard by the State Security Court. Speaking to the Ofoq News website in Arabic, Al-Afif cited the cases of the terrorist cell in Karak Castle in 2016 and the Irbid cell in the same year, explaining that the trial procedures in such cases were proceeding “quickly and almost daily.”

Regarding the conduct of the trial, he explained that during the first sessions the court listens to the Public Prosecution’s witnesses whose names are included in the list of evidence, including men from Public Security, forensic doctors, and citizens, and allows the parties to the case to discuss the witnesses, before completing the presentation of the Public Prosecution’s evidence, and then gives the defendants and defense agents an opportunity to present their defense evidence, leading to the pleadings, then deliberation and issuance of the decision by the ruling body. Charges and expected penalties Regarding the seven charges assigned to the defendants, Al-Afif described the penalties resulting from them as severe, considering that the case is clear from his point of view, and that what the Public Prosecutor assigned to the defendants is “a real and correct attribution.”

Al-Afif stated that the charge of carrying out terrorist acts that led to the death of a person, repeated nine times, is at the forefront of the charges in terms of importance, explaining that its repetition is linked to the number of people who died in the attack, and is legally known as the physical multiplicity of crimes. Al-Afif explained this by saying that there is more than one criminal incident to which the legal text criminalizing the act applies, so that each incident is considered an independent crime, adding: “The penalty for this crime is death,” indicating that each of the nine incidents is considered a crime in itself, and entails, according to his description, the death penalty.

The second most important charge, according to Al-Afif, is conspiracy with the intention of committing terrorist acts, as he believed that the investigations and indicators indicate the existence of a prior agreement between the accused to commit the terrorist act. He said in this context: “This terrorist act in this form cannot be spur of the moment. Rather, the basic principle is that there should be a prior agreement and preparation to carry out this act,” adding that the actual occurrence of a terrorist act makes the penalty resulting from the conspiracy charge, according to his legal assessment, also death.

Al-Afif also addressed the charge of committing a terrorist act using firearms, considering that it comes at a later stage in terms of danger, punishment, and impact on society, and that the actions attributed to the accused constitute the pillars and elements of this crime. Regarding the charge of promoting the ideas of a terrorist group, Al-Afif said that his previous experience, knowledge, research, studies, and participation in cases at the national, regional, and international levels indicate that the perpetrators of such crimes are often linked to an external party or believe in the ideas of terrorist groups, considering that this may explain the attribution of this charge to the accused.

He also touched on the charge of disturbing public order, explaining that it may fall within the moral plurality of crimes, which is achieved when more than one criminal text applies to a single act. After reviewing the charges, Al-Afif said that all charges against the defendants fall within the crimes stipulated in the Prevention of Terrorism Law, considering that they are consistent with the acts committed, whether in terms of the physical multiplicity or the moral multiplicity of the crimes.

Regarding the expected sentence, Al-Afif said that he believes that the sentence that will be issued is the death penalty against people proven to have participated in the crime, incited it, or interfered in it, based on what he described as the equality of the Jordanian legislator, in the Prevention of Terrorism Law and the general rules contained in the Penal Code related to state security crimes, between the perpetrator, instigator, and accomplice, as well as between complete attempt and incomplete attempt. He explained that the punishment, according to his legal reading, will be the same, whether the matter relates to the original act, interference, incitement, or participation, while determining responsibilities and penalties is up to the court after considering the evidence and deciding the case.

Regarding appeals against rulings, Al-Afif stressed that all decisions of the State Security Court, whether in misdemeanor or felony cases, are subject to cassation, explaining that the accused has the right to appeal the ruling within 30 days from the date of its issuance. He added that the ruling is considered distinct by law even if the accused does not file an appeal, in accordance with what is stipulated in the State Security Court law, indicating that the Court of Cassation extends its oversight over the trial procedures, evidence and facts, and has the right to issue the ruling it deems appropriate in accordance with the nature of the evidence, facts, procedures and acts committed.