11 more terror suspects receive varying jail terms

11 more terror suspects receive varying jail terms
Updated 15 April 2013
Follow

11 more terror suspects receive varying jail terms

11 more terror suspects receive varying jail terms

A special court in Riyadh yesterday sentenced 11 terror suspects to a combined jail term of 20 years.
The defendants were charged with recruiting young men to fight in a number of countries, as well as raising funds to support terrorist activity. The defendants also received travel restrictions for periods equivalent to their jail terms.
This was the second group of suspects sentenced in the case.
The first defendant was convicted of communicating with members belonging to illegal organizations and recruiting men to fight in Afghanistan, in addition to raising SR 50,000 to fund violence.
The second defendant was sentenced to a two-year jail term based on the same charges.
The third defendant received a three-year jail term for raising money to help support fighters in foreign countries. The fourth defendant was sentenced to four years in prison due to his involvement in raising money without prior authorization.
Many of them were convicted for violating Article 16.
The fifth defendant also received a four-year sentence, two of which were for raising money without authorization to support fighters in foreign countries.
The court handed the sixth defendant a 10-month jail term for communicating with people with subversive intentions.
The seventh defendant was charged with violating articles 5 and 6 of the anti-counterfeit laws and was given a three-year sentence.
Defendant No. 8 has been jailed for one year and six months.
The ninth defendant was given two years in prison, while suspects 10 and 11 received six months and four months respectively.
The court found most of the defendants guilty of recruiting men to fight for terror cells and colluding with operators in Afghanistan, Iraq and Chechnya.
Eight defendants objected to the court ruling and requested a retrial, while the others opposed the court rulings but said their statement was to be taken as a rebuttal.