Haidar asserted in court that her clients had no connection to the seized shipment and that there was no physical or technical evidence linking them to the incident. She pointed out the absence of the elements of the customs smuggling offense against them, as well as the lack of criminal intent and knowledge of the seized items. She argued that the investigations were invalid due to a lack of seriousness and violation of Article 46 of the Criminal Procedures and Trials Law, which stipulates that investigation reports lose their probative value unless presented to the competent prosecution.

She added that the case file lacked any conclusive evidence to support the charges and that the incident, as presented, is legally inconceivable in the case of her clients. This, she stressed, rendered the initial ruling on acquitting her clients legally sound. After reviewing the case, the Court of Appeals upheld the appealed ruling, which acquitted the brothers, and rejected the appeal of the prosecution, confirming the validity of the initial ruling and its consistency with the established facts. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals issued final rulings in several drug cases, upholding the acquittal of the defendants, as the invalidity of the arrest and search procedures was established. Following the arguments of Attorney Tahani Al-Nafis – lawyer for the defendants, the court dismissed the claim for financial compensation against one of the defendants. It also upheld his acquittal of possessing narcotics for personal use, citing insufficient evidence. In a separate ruling, the Court of Appeals upheld the acquittal of a defendant of possessing narcotics and psychotropic substances. The defense argued that the search warrant was invalid because it was not based on serious investigations, and that the search of his vehicle was also invalid due to the absence of a warrant.