The Criminal Court of First Instance in Tangier issued its ruling, convicting “A.S” to 5 years in prison, and obliged her to pay a compensatory amount of 100,000 dirhams to the victim’s family, after she was prosecuted on charges of “intentional injury leading to death without the intent to kill” and “theft accompanied by the circumstances of night and violence.”
The case began after an elderly man was found completely naked in an apartment, with clear signs of violence and semen on his underwear.
The investigation led to the arrest of the girl after the victim’s phone was found in her possession. The accused completely denied her involvement in the man’s death and provided a detailed account that her defense considered legitimate self-defense.
The girl stated that she went to Ksar al-Kebir for the purpose of bathing in a traditional bath, but she returned home after it became clear that the timing was designated for men only. While contemplating an alternative, a man (the victim) offered her to rent an apartment, so she agreed and entered with him to check it out.
According to her claim, the man prevented her from leaving the apartment, then tied her up and forcibly detained her before he stripped and attempted to force sex upon her against her will.
The girl took advantage of the moment he was distracted and tried to escape, but he followed her, so she pushed him hard and he fell to the ground. The girl confirmed that she did not intend to kill him and that he kept calling her to return to the apartment, but she did not respond out of fear of him, especially since he was naked. She added that she was later shocked by the news of his death and being accused of the crime.
The defense of the accused relied primarily on medical and scientific expertise, which confirmed that there were no biological traces belonging to the accused on the victim’s body or at the crime scene, which weakens the direct accusation of his abuse, in addition to the expertise confirming that the man died “by suffocation.”
The accused asserts that she was the real victim in this incident, and that her possession of the victim’s phone was incidental, as she used it to contact her mother to check on her, and then disposed of it later without thinking of the consequences of her action and its use as evidence against her.
