The High Appeals Court in Manama, Bahrain, recently upheld the acquittal of five Asian fishermen who were accused of possessing prohibited and unlicensed fishing nets on their vessel. The nets in question were of the “hyali” type, a type of floating trawl net. The defendants’ lawyer, Zahra Naama, argued that the case lacked evidence to convict her clients and emphasized that they maintained their innocence throughout the proceedings.
The High Appeals Court carefully examined the case, considering the circumstances and evidence presented by the prosecution. After weighing the evidence against the defendants’ denial, the court concluded that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to prove the charges and did not find it convincing that the defendants committed the alleged act. The testimonies of the witnesses did not state that the nets were unauthorised or prohibited but indicated that they were compliant with specifications.
The court noted that the witnesses did not measure the length of the nets to confirm the specifications and that their change in testimony did not provide sufficient grounds to conclude that the nets were prohibited. The ruling explained that the nets could have been authorized and not prohibited if their length met the required specifications. Therefore, the court did not find it convincing that the seized nets were prohibited.
The case files and seizure report showed that the nets were inspected by maritime inspectors who determined that they were compliant with specifications. The nets were on board the seized vessel, under the custody of the Coast Guard, making it highly unlikely for anyone to intervene and make the nets appear compliant during the inspection. Despite the initial claim of violation, the court concluded that the defendants could not have tampered with the nets during the inspection.
Overall, the High Appeals Court upheld the acquittal of the fishermen, finding the prosecution’s evidence insufficient to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that the witnesses’ testimonies did not establish that the nets were unauthorized or prohibited and that the inspection reports did not provide conclusive evidence of wrongdoing. The ruling highlighted the importance of thorough examination of evidence in cases like this to ensure justice is served fairly.
