Saturday 27/December/2025 – 10:41 AM
Amr Abdel Salam, the defense of the victim, Dr. Osama Sabour, known in the media as the Sahel doctor, revealed the scenes of the defendants’ appeal hearing against the death sentence and the aggravator in the case.
The coast doctor’s lawyer at the appeal hearing against the execution of defendants in the case
Abdel Salam said during a live broadcast on the Cairo 24 website that he asked the court to uphold the death sentence for the accused and the aggravated death sentence for the third accused in the Sahel doctor case, based on the accused’s detailed confessions of the crime.
Abdel Salam explained that the reasons on which the defendants’ defense was based were illogical because they confessed to detailed confessions, lured him, ended his life, dug a hole for him inside an apartment, and buried him inside, so he demanded that the sentences issued against the defendants be upheld.
In a separate context, Ahmed Ashour, the lawyer for the second defendant in the Sahel doctor case, said that he presented several reasons to the Court of Cassation to appeal the death sentence for his client, defendant A. F.A.
The lawyer for the second defendant explained that he based his appeal on corruption in the evidence and violation of what was proven in the papers when he argued that the confession was invalid because it was under duress, and he submitted telegrams sent to the Public Prosecutor stating that. However, the appealed ruling responded to this defense by saying that it came late and contradicted what was proven in the papers.
The defense disputed the legal categorization of the incident due to facts mentioned by the defence, which would make the incident the administration of harmful substances that led to death and not intentional killing, as well as the lack of intent to take the life of the second appellant, and without the referee speaking independently of it, he confirmed that if they had wanted to kill him, they would have killed him in Abu Wafiyah’s apartment without moving him and trying to save him.
He concluded: The error in applying the law in terms of applying Article 17 penalties and downgrading the sentence by two levels for the third appellant to 15 years in prison because the difference between the fates of the convicts despite the unity of the criminal project is something that harms justice. Therefore, all defendants must be equal and this is not the application of the rule of singling out punishment.
