The Appeal Court dismissed a convicted foreigner’s appeal on receiving terrorism training, fully upholding guilt but accepting the Attorney General’s appeal on sentencing. The original two-year prison term proved manifestly inadequate, raising it to four years. The case stemmed from Limassol District Court conviction under Article 9 of the 2019 Combating Terrorism Law.
Police found extensive structured training materials on the defendant’s phone: manuals and videos detailing bomb construction, IEDs, chemicals, and attacks on public spaces like restaurants, buses, and nightclubs.
Legal challenges rejected
The defendant contested the indictment amendment adding a new timeframe, but the court ruled it permissible under Article 85(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as it mirrored the original charge without harming defense. Claims of unproven elements failed; possession and downloading constituted “training” per EU Directive 2017/541, encompassing online self-study with intent to contribute to terrorism.
The self-defense claim – for Syria return – lacked merit, given the materials’ offensive nature, quality, and structure. A terrorism expert’s testimony confirmed the practical training intent. Jurisdiction was held since the materials were held in Cyprus.
Ideology and rights claims dismissed
Assertions of rights violations or ideological punishment failed. ISIS support references proved intent contextually, not punitively, aligning with EU law and jurisprudence. Simple possession isn’t criminal; active downloading, systematic collection for operational use, qualifies as training.
The court stressed preventive criminalization pre-act, reflecting EU Directive shifts toward preemption given terrorism’s irreversible harm to society and the rule of law.
Sentencing rationale
The original court underestimated the severity: terrorism training alone endangers society profoundly, warranting deterrence irrespective of executed acts. Intent infers from circumstantial evidence like material type, civilian attack focus, and ideology, without needing confessions.
No discrimination or thought freedom breach occurred; ideology evidences intent only. The four-year term restores proportionality, serving retributive and protective roles. This precedent guides future digital radicalization cases.
Also read: Autopsy reveals cause of death in Christmas fire
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel
